Back
J. Rajendra, Presiding Member, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member
Sushil Mukesh Gaglani – Appellant
Versus
Lifecell International – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background of the revision petitions and previous forum orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. factual basis of the complaint regarding prp treatment and alleged misrepresentation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. defenses raised by medical practitioners and service providers regarding consent and professional competence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. review of lower commission findings and rationale for partially allowing claims. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. contentions of parties regarding the applicability of the drugs and cosmetics act to prp procedures. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. application of the bolam test and standard of care in medical negligence cases for specialized treatments. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. requirement of cogent evidence and burden of proof in allegations of medical negligence. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. Three separate Revision Petitions have been preferred on behalf of the complainant (Sushil Mukesh Gaglani) bearing No.681, 682 and 683 of 2022, before this Commission assailing Order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the learned State Commission, Maharashtra whereby t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
