The opposite parties denied her admission or operation in the clinic and also refuted the removal of rusted nut and bolt by claiming that they ought to be stainless steel material for medical use.
“For applying the principles of Res Ipsa Locutor, it is necessary that a ‘Res’ is present to establish the allegation of negligence.”
The Commission stated that the treating doctor is the best judge in a case where multiple options/ tests are available in respect of a particular ailment.
The Supreme Court held that the IAF and the Indian Army were vicariously liable, jointly and severally, as the former was Veteran’s immediate employer and the latter was the organization controlling and in charge of the Military Hospital
Supreme Court said that the burden was on the appellant more particularly in a circumstance when all the family members had got administered the same vaccination from the same source and the appellant himself did not undergo any difficulty when the first two doses were administered.
“When a minor seeks a medical termination of pregnancy, doctors must ensure that the process is conducted in compliance with the prevailing laws and regulations, with utmost sensitivity to the minor’s age and maturity level.”
A consumer complaint was filed before the TSCDRC alleging deficiency of service/medical negligence on part of the staff performing surgery, seeking compensation of Rs 40 lakhs.
“Falsification of records is an extremely serious matter. It partakes of crime and is coloured by criminal intent. Where the falsification takes place in connection with treatment of a patient, especially where the patient is dead, the seriousness of the misdemeanor increases manifold.”
While deciding upon the complaint, the NCDRC also made important observations on ethical questions surrounding Assisted Reproductive Techniques and urged the Government to bring out necessary regulations for safe ART procedures.
The Commission was deciding a case where the complainant (who was a medical professional himself) had accused the opposite parties of medical negligence after his son died due to cardiac arrest after getting operated for disfigurement of eye.
NCDRC conveyed that “We have deep sympathies with the death of Justice Verma, but it cannot be ground for liability.”
“It is for the Doctors to take a decision and continue the treatment by following the medical protocol. Contrarily, High Court cannot interfere with the opinions of the medical expert by acting as an expert body which is not desirable, and it will lead to excess exercise of powers of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution”
While dealing with the challenge against the order of SCDRC, the NCDRC found that the hospital made every possible attempt during medical complications after a successful surgery.
Madras High Court said that the people of the country who co-operate by offering themselves voluntarily for sterilization reasonably expect that after undergoing the operation, they would be able to avoid further pregnancy and consequent birth of additional child.
Accepting the exceptionally challenging nature of treatment of high voltage burns, NCDRC held the doctor liable to the extent of performing LD Flap surgery, otherwise recommended to be performed by plastic surgeons.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts in February 2023
NHRC had refused to interfere with the instant case of medical negligence, while SHRC issued certain directions. The High Court also did not find anything wrong with the directions of SHRC, hence, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court in the present matter.
While dealing with a challenge against the order of the State Commission, Delhi, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission found the same reasoned, and the compensation to be just and adequate, thereby dismissing both the appeals.
In a medical negligence case, the Tis Hazari Court held that since there was no justifiable reason to assume that the doctor committed any offence into the allegations made by the complainant, no FIR could be registered on the whims and fancies of the complainant guided by unfounded and unsubstantiated assumptions only to satisfy his discontentment with the treatment of his child.
Kerala High Court acquitted the medical staff convicted by the Trial Court in medical negligence case and held that sufficient evidence is needed to prove death due to medical negligence, and that a medical professional cannot be held liable for mischance or misfortune.