Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The complaint case categorically asserted that the nursing home was ‘inadequately and ill equipped’ to handle emergencies during deliveries. There were no allegations that the antenatal care and management of Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, were deficient in any manner.
“While negligence was an omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do, medical negligence occurred when a healthcare professional breached his duty of care, causing harm to a patient.”
“This is a case of pure misadventure where the doctor has admitted the patient and after taking go ahead for operation from the patient’s family members, did not perform the operation in time as he was not having the requisite doctor (i.e. anaesthetist) to perform the surgery.”
Prior to his elevation to the Supreme Court, as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, Justice Aravind Kumar, initiated steps to tackle pendency of cases and initiated conversion of roadways buses into schools for poor children.
Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Pankaj Mithal began his career in law in the 1980s and subsequently went on to become Chief Justice of High Courts of J&K and Ladakh and Rajasthan.
Kerala High Court permitted the petitioner to conduct the hospital strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018, and the conditions stipulated in the licences and permissions obtained.
The Patna High Court relying upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 and Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, acquitted the female gynaecologist in the alleged kidney removal during surgery medical negligence case.
This roundup offers a concise overview of the latest criminal law cases from May 2025, featuring key rulings from the Supreme Court and various High Courts.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The Court clarified that only in cases involving a gross lack of competence, inaction, or a wanton disregard for the patient’s safety, stemming from gross ignorance or gross negligence, can a doctor be made to face criminal charges.
“The solemn obligation of the legal system is to distinguish between misfortune and culpability, and to ensure that human suffering, however profound, does not substitute for proof required under the law.”
“While it is acknowledged that doctors are expected to apply a reasonable level of expertise and exercise due diligence in their practices, their conduct must not be judged against preconceived notions of a specific procedure or outcome.”
“When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless the contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.”
The report submitted by the Committee nowhere suggests that prescription of irrational combination of medicines by applicant is responsible for brain hemorrhage and consequential death of complainant’s wife.
The Commission held that reliance on old CT scan report; invalid consent & unjustified delay in conducting Laparotomy, constituted Medical Negligence and directed the surgeon to pay compensation of Rs. 4 Lakhs.
NCDRC pointed out that the Fortis hospital and the assigned doctor ignored the condition of the patient’s lungs and started angioplasty, thereby resulting in severe pulmonary edema within half an hour of beginning the procedure leading up to further complications.
Prior to his elevation to the Supreme Court, Justice Aravind Kumar, as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court initiated steps to tackle pendency of cases and initiated conversion of roadways buses into schools for poor children.
The Court stated that allowing the proceedings to continue will amount to an abuse of the process of law.
This 24-year-old matter revolved around a sixth-generation leading jeweller of Hyderabad who in 2002 underwent coronary surgery at Care Hospital but developed life threatening complications after the operation.
When the Court suggested it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition due to territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petitions. The Court granted this request, allowing the petitioner to take appropriate legal steps.