Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: medical degrees act 1916 section 2 definitions Court: maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc mumbai Year: 2009 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.084 seconds)

Oct 21 2009 (TRI)

Shri Balkrishna Mahadev Kare, Pune Vs. Shri Dr. P.N. Nagpal and Anothe ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-21-2009

..... and therefore, he pleaded that complaint should be dismissed. he further pleaded that complaint filed is totally frivolous and should be dismissed with compensatory costs awardable u/sec. 26 of the consumer protection act. he pleaded that complainant was suffering from tuberculosis and eales diseases. visual loss is characteristically caused by bilateral recurrent vitreous haemorrhages. eales disease is wide spread ..... entitled to get relief claimed and he has not come in this commission with clean hands? no. (iii) whether the complainant proves that opposite party nos. 1 and 2 were guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in services in giving treatment to him? no. (iv) what order, if any? complaint stands dismissed r e a s o n s: issue ..... of facts and circumstances requiring recording of evidence and cross-examination and this commission having summary powers to decide cases on affidavits should not entertain this complaint involving alleged medical negligence and therefore, this complaint should be referred to civil court where evidence can be adduced and parties can cross-examine the witnesses. however, we are not convinced ..... par, though the end result may not be satisfaction of the patient. he asserted that he exhibited high degree of care and caution. he pleaded that patients always do not respond to the medical management and since there are many diseases where medical professional is helpless. he stated that, in such cases, in spite of possible care and treatment patient may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2009 (TRI)

Shri Shankar Muddanna Shetty Vs. Dean, K.E.M. Hospital of Municipal Co ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-15-2009

..... he availed services of k.e.m.hospital without any consideration and therefore the complainant is not a consumer within a meaning of sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of consumer protection act and his complaint on that count should be dismissed. 8) the o.ps also pleaded that the complainant was admitted to ..... record produced by the complainant to prove how dr.supe and others at k.e.m.hospital were guilty of medical negligence. alleging medical negligence is one thing but proving medical negligence against doctors is an altogether different thing. strong proof is required to show where treating doctors faulted. no ..... debridgments operations. had the complainant continued treatment in k.e.m.hospital, we are sure he would have been recovered fully but against medical advice he took discharge from k.e.m.hospital and approached another hospital where his condition deteriorated and ultimately he had to lose his ..... nursing home dated 14/3/1997 and that he was also producing treatment card issued unity nursing home and iccu dated 18/3/1997 and medical certificate issued by dr.prabhakar shetty. however, these documents are not on record though mentioned in the list documents relied upon by the complainant. ..... he will have to ampute the foot when complainant did not respond debridement due to complicated nature of his illness. they pleaded that the medical literature available suggests the requirement of continued surgical debridements in the patients who are having high level of diabetes. this is required to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2009 (TRI)

Manik Alias Gangajirao Zugara More ‘gulmohar’ Shrinagar Lane ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-03-2009

..... son. but, in the instant case, patient and victim of medical negligence as alleged is the major son. but, since he is rendered disabled allegedly because of these two hospitals, we hold that in such contingencies, the father can be treated as consumer within meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of consumer protection act, 1986 and as such consumer complaint as filed by father ..... of the supreme court, complaint can be filed by him on behalf of his son, who was disabled. the consumer protection act, 1986 is a benevolent social legislature. therefore, looking to the scope of section 2(1)(d) and other relevant sections, we hold that even father of disabled child can be held to have legal competence to file consumer complaint on behalf of ..... in 2001 itself and therefore, this affidavit must be discarded in toto. moreover, affidavit of an expert, who is md in forensic medicine, cannot be acted upon even otherwise to hold o.ps. guilty of medical negligence because this case was pertaining to neurosurgery, plastic surgery and disablement arising out of treatment given to mahendra more when his bedsores and muscle contractures ..... the hospital. he was also informed about line of treatment by hospital vide letter no.hosp/r/npt/3672 dated 8th july 1998 by the chief medical officer, which was self-explanatory. o.p.no.2 pleaded that the patient was shifted from port trust hospital after completion of course of 21 sitting as advised by dr.sushil patkar, consultant neurosurgeon of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 2009 (TRI)

Mrs. Kalyani Raut, Jui Cooperative Housing Society, Thane Vs. Dr. Mani ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-04-2009

..... , the opposite parties cannot be permitted to say that widow of the deceased patient is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the consumer protection act. there can be deferred payment made by the consumer and merely because payment is not accepted by the hospital and doctors that ..... does not mean that widow of the deceased patient is not a consumer u/sec. 2(1)(d) of the consumer protection act. so, even this objection as taken by the opposite parties is not tenable in law. we brush aside the objection taken by ..... tactics. according to opposite party no.1, the complaint is totally frivolous and vexatious, and she should be penalized by imposing heavy penalty u/sec. 26 of consumer protection act. opposite party no.1 further pleaded that millennium hospital is owned by dr. mrs. ratan savla, m.d; d.g.o. and is ..... that he was so informed is false and it was a lie. he had given intimation to the relatives which was misleading. a person having homeopathic degree cannot be permitted to run hospital like this and to fix surgeries in millennium hospital and this is a greatest lapse on the part of dr. ..... paediatrician, e.n.t. surgeon and ophthalmogist. opposite party no.1 claimed that, he passed m.s. in general surgery in 2000 from bharati vidyapeeth medical college and took diploma in basic laparoscopic surgery hyderabad in 2001. he then took another diploma from advanced diploma in laparoscopic surgery from coimbatore. he worked in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 19 2009 (TRI)

Dr. Vijay S. Pradhan and Another Vs. Dr. Niteen C. Dedhia and Others

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-19-2009

..... wrong at the hands of dr.dedhia. dr.dedhia also has to share his blame for the loss of eyesight by two complainants when he did not act as an leading ophthalmologist because he compromised on may things turning nelsons eye to the short comings he has now highlighted in the o.t.s managed by ..... pending before metropolitan magistrate court at bandra. in that complaint, dr.bhimani, medical director of lilavati hospital and research centre is shown as accused no.1 and dr.nitin dedhia is shown as accused no.2. said complaint is filed u/s 338 r/w sec.34 and 109 of i.p.c. however, filing of criminal complaint can ..... .3/hospital. he pleaded that undoubtedly o.p.no.3 was ??principal and he was ??agent and therefore o.p.no.3 is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their employees and agents including o.p.no.1. the o.p.no.1 further pleaded that bacterial infection can be picked up by the ..... taking effective steps at the earliest opportunity. he lost valuable time and days in persisting with ineffective eye drops and in adopting wait and watch policy by his act of omission and commissions. the o.p.no.1/doctor is guilty of gross negligence in performing surgery and also in taking post operative care and in not ..... his vision back. they did not go to the root of the problem and all the while they only tried to save their skin which itself was an act of gross negligence on their part. the o.p.no.3 did not furnish complainant case papers and indoor papers with regard to the hospitalisation in o. .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //