After Supreme Courts verdict on Lawyers, Doctors also hopeful for a relief from Consumer Protection Act
After a historic decision by the Supreme Court, doctors are hopeful that, like lawyers, they will also be excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. A bench of two judges of the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the NCDRC, which had considered the services provided by lawyers to their clients under the Consumer Protection Act.
Curious case of medical negligence, the doctor got convicted u/s 304A IPC but NCDRC observes no Medical Negligence
In an interesting case of alleged medical negligence the NCDRC has refused to interfere with order of the Kerala SCDRC and disallowed the appeal against the Kerala State commission order of the year 2012. Interestingly in the complaint related to the same case the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha had convicted respondent doctor under section 304 A IPC on 03.05.2011. The Expert Committee appointed by the Police following the filing of the FIR which was headed by the District Medical Officer (DMO) gave the opinion that there was lack of reasonable care and exercise of skill in that particular case in timely detecting and preventing postoperative haemorrhage which was the cause of haemetometra and death of the subject.
More than a case of gross medical negligence, it is a case of cheating; HC refuses to quash criminal complaint against the cardiologist and the hospital
After considering the legal and factual position of case that dates back to 2013, Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quash criminal complaint against one senior cardiologist and the accused super speciality hospital. HC observed that there was sufficient material to hold that petitioner should face the prosecution. "No fault can be found with the impugned summoning order", mentions the HC order.It was observed the Hc that the hospital record, as placed on record by the respondent- complainant prima facie demonstrate the sufficient material to proceed with the complaint against the petitioners, even in the absence of any opinion of the medical expert, as it has already been observed by this Court that more than a case of gross medical negligence, it is a case of cheating having been committed by the petitioners in conspiracy with each other.
Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of a septuagenarian doctor For Patient's Death 40 Yrs Ago
The Bombay High Court recently upheld the conviction of a septuagenarian doctor for his negligence by not taking immediate steps to deal with a complication during a surgery, leading to the death of a patient in 1984.
Written advice for ROP screening was given timely, hence No Medical Negligence by Doctors-SCDRC
The Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has rejected the allegation of negligence against the doctors and hospital involved in the birth and treatment of a newborn child. In the case that dates back to 2016, where a baby was born prematurely, the hospital had informed the complainant parents about the possibility of Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) at the time of discharge and had clearly advised them to consult an Ophthalmologist for screening
Transfusion of contaminated blood led to death of the patient after surgery, Doctor and hospital held guilty
Considering the act of doctors grossly negligent, NCDRC has recently imposed a fine of 25 Lakh on the treating doctor and the hospital. The husband of the deceased patient as well as the doctor had appealed to NCDRC against the decision of the state commission in which a compensation of12 Lakh was awarded. Complaint was also made in the State Medical Council, to the state govt and a criminal case was also filed by the husband.