{"id":250208,"date":"2021-06-23T12:10:03","date_gmt":"2021-06-23T06:40:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=250208"},"modified":"2023-07-31T11:18:32","modified_gmt":"2023-07-31T05:48:32","slug":"clinical-negligence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/","title":{"rendered":"[Clinical Negligence] | What is the scope of medical practitioner’s duty of care? Is he liable for “coincidental injury” not within scope of his duty?"},"content":{"rendered":"

UPDATE: Appeal preferred by the respondent against this decision before the UKSC has been unanimously dismissed.[Khan v. X, [2021] UKSC 21, decided on 18-06-2021]<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Court of Appeal (Civil Division):<\/strong> The Division Bench of Lord Justice Hickinbottom and Lady Justice Nicola Davies DBE decided that the appellant doctor was not liable for the development of a “coincidental injury” in the newborn child, which was not within the scope of his duty to diagnose when the mother of the child consulted her before pregnancy.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/u><\/span><\/h3>\n

The appellant was the mother of a child with haemophilia and autism. Before her pregnancy, she asked Dr Khan to establish whether she carried the haemophilia gene. Following blood tests, the mother was wrongly led to believe that any child she had would not have haemophilia. Had she known that she carried the haemophilia gene, she would have undergone foetal testing for haemophilia when she was pregnant. This would have revealed the foetus was affected. Appellant would then have chosen to terminate her pregnancy, and her child would not have been born.<\/p>\n

Appellant sought damages from Dr Khan based on wrongful birth.<\/p>\n

Further, she argued that Dr Khan was liable for all the consequences of the pregnancy. Dr Khan admitted liability for the consequences of the child’s haemophilia but denied liability in relation to the autism.<\/p>\n

Issue for Consideration<\/u><\/span><\/h3>\n

If a child born with more than one disability would not have been born but for a doctor’s failure to advise of the risk of their being born with one of those disabilities, can the mother sue the doctor for the costs associated with all of the child’s disabilities, or only for the costs associated with the disability the doctor was consulted on?<\/p>\n

Court\u2019s Discussion<\/u><\/p>\n

Bench stated that the scope of duty test identified by Lord Hoffman in South Australian Asset Management Corporation v. York Montague Ltd<\/em> (“SAAMCO”) [1997] AC 191 is determinative of the issues which have to be addressed by a court.<\/p>\n

Following were the questions:<\/p>\n

i) What was the purpose of the procedure\/information\/advice which is alleged to have been negligent;<\/p>\n

ii) What was the appropriate apportionment of risk-taking account of the nature of the advice, procedure, information;<\/p>\n

iii) What losses would, in any event, have occurred if the defendant’s advice\/information was correct or the procedure had been performed?<\/p>\n

Court found that:<\/p>\n

i) The purpose of the consultation was to put the respondent in a position to enable her to make an informed decision in respect of any child which she conceived who was subsequently discovered to be carrying the haemophilia gene. Given the specific enquiry of the respondent’s mother, it would be inappropriate and unnecessary for a doctor at such consultation to volunteer to the person seeking specific information any information about other risks of pregnancy including the risk that the child might suffer from autism. In giving such information it would be incumbent on a doctor, consistent with her\/his own professional obligations, to take account of a variety of factors which on the facts of this case the appellant was unaware of.<\/p>\n

ii) As to the apportionment of risk, the doctor would be liable for the risk of a mother giving birth to a child with haemophilia because there had been no foetal testing and consequent upon it no termination of the pregnancy. The mother would take the risks of all other potential difficulties of the pregnancy and birth both as to herself and to her child.<\/p>\n

iii) loss which would have been sustained if the correct information had been given and appropriate testing performed would have been that the child would have been born with autism.<\/p>\n

It was held that the appellant had no duty to prevent the birth of Adejuwon. The purpose and scope of the appellant\u2019s duty were to advise and investigate in relation to haemophilia in order to provide the respondent with an opportunity to avoid the risk of a child being born with haemophilia.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/u><\/span>\u00a0<\/u><\/h3>\n

Bench expressed that the development of autism was a coincidental injury and not one within the scope of the appellant’s duty.<\/p>\n

In view of the above discussion, the appeal was allowed. [Dr Hafshah Khan v. X, [2019] EWCA Civ 152, Hearing date: 17 October 2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

UPDATE: Appeal preferred by the respondent against this decision before the UKSC has been unanimously dismissed.[Khan v. X, [2021] UKSC 21, decided <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":163204,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[33150,46313,46311,46310,29785,42834,3461,32488,46312,2644,30432],"class_list":["post-250208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-autism","tag-clinical-negligence","tag-duty-of-doctor","tag-haemophilia","tag-law","tag-legal-news","tag-liability","tag-negligent","tag-new-born-child","tag-pregnancy","tag-uk-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\n[Clinical Negligence] | What is the scope of medical practitioner's duty of care? Is he liable for "coincidental injury" not within scope of his duty? | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Clinical Negligence\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[Clinical Negligence] | What is the scope of medical practitioner's duty of care? Is he liable for "coincidental injury" not within scope of his duty?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Clinical Negligence\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-06-23T06:40:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-07-31T05:48:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/\",\"name\":\"[Clinical Negligence] | What is the scope of medical practitioner's duty of care? Is he liable for \\\"coincidental injury\\\" not within scope of his duty? | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-06-23T06:40:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-07-31T05:48:32+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Clinical Negligence\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[Clinical Negligence] | What is the scope of medical practitioner’s duty of care? Is he liable for “coincidental injury” not within scope of his duty?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"[Clinical Negligence] | What is the scope of medical practitioner's duty of care? Is he liable for \"coincidental injury\" not within scope of his duty? | SCC Times","description":"Clinical Negligence","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[Clinical Negligence] | What is the scope of medical practitioner's duty of care? Is he liable for \"coincidental injury\" not within scope of his duty?","og_description":"Clinical Negligence","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-06-23T06:40:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-07-31T05:48:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/","name":"[Clinical Negligence] | What is the scope of medical practitioner's duty of care? Is he liable for \"coincidental injury\" not within scope of his duty? | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg","datePublished":"2021-06-23T06:40:03+00:00","dateModified":"2023-07-31T05:48:32+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Clinical Negligence","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/23\/clinical-negligence\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[Clinical Negligence] | What is the scope of medical practitioner’s duty of care? Is he liable for “coincidental injury” not within scope of his duty?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/High-Court-UK.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":6136,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/19\/trustee-will-not-be-personally-liable-as-to-costs-incurred-in-earlier-proceedings\/","url_meta":{"origin":250208,"position":0},"title":"Trustee will not be personally liable as to costs incurred in earlier proceedings","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 19, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United Kingdom- Giving directions in the pending appeal concerning a claim in negligence by the appellant against the respondent wherein the Trustee so appointed sought the extent of his potential liability (personal liability) for costs if the appeal fails, the Court unanimously held that if the Trustee\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Foreign Courts"","block_context":{"text":"Foreign Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/foreigncourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273008,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/03\/chhattisgarh-high-court-laparoscopic-tubectomy-public-health-centre-compensation-negligence-medical-termination-of-pregnancy-act-unwanted-pregnancy-surgical-sterilisation-legal-research-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":250208,"position":1},"title":"Chhattisgarh High Court sets aside compensation granted to a woman upon failure of the Laparoscopic Tubectomy operation","author":"Editor","date":"September 3, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal filed challenging the impugned judgment passed by the lower court, wherein the court awarded Rs 51,000 towards compensation to the respondent due to the failure of a Laparoscopic Tubectomy (LTT) operation, P. Sam Koshy, J. held that respondent would not be entitled for any\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Chhattisgarh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":204002,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/duty-to-care-covers-the-duty-to-not-provide-misleading-information-which-may-foreseeably-cause-physical-injury\/","url_meta":{"origin":250208,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Duty to care\u2019 covers the duty to not provide misleading information which may foreseeably cause physical injury","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"United Kingdom Supreme Court: A five-judge bench comprising of Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge, and Lord Lloyd-Jones while hearing an appeal pertaining to breach of duty held that the scope of the duty of care of a hospital extends to not providing misleading information. The appellant was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":232645,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/22\/ph-hc-gynaecologists-cannot-be-attributed-with-medical-negligence-if-a-woman-conceives-after-undergoing-tubectomy-during-childbirth-via-caesarean-section\/","url_meta":{"origin":250208,"position":3},"title":"P&H HC | Gynaecologists cannot be attributed with medical negligence if a woman conceives after undergoing tubectomy during childbirth via caesarean section","author":"Editor","date":"July 22, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has put this story together","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":214920,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/22\/bom-hc-ayurvedic-certificate-holder-who-trespassed-into-field-of-allopathy-thereby-causing-death-of-two-persons-convicted-for-causing-death-by-negligence\/","url_meta":{"origin":250208,"position":4},"title":"Bom HC | Ayurvedic certificate holder who trespassed into field of Allopathy thereby causing death of two persons convicted for causing death by negligence","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 22, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0Swapna Joshi, J. partly allowed a criminal appeal and altered the conviction of the appellant -- an Ayurvedic certificate holder -- from the one under Section 304 (II) IPC to that under Section 304-A IPC. The appellant was convicted for causing the death of two deceased persons. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":245250,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/09\/contributory-negligence-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":250208,"position":5},"title":"NCDRC | Newborn child in the care of hospital staff and her grandmother suffered from thermal burns. Will this amount to Contributory Negligence? Is the hospital vicariously liable? Read on","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Division Bench of Anup K Thakur (Presiding Member) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) while addressing the present matter of contributory negligence, expressed that: \u201c\u2026grant of compensation to remedy the medical wrong\/negligence is within the realm of law of torts.\u201d Complainant 1\u2019s wife Complainant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250208","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=250208"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250208\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/163204"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}