Ver­dicts that changed the face of our health­care sys­tem

India Today - - HEALTH -

Lax­man Balkr­ishna Joshi vs Trim­bak Bapu God­bole & Anr, 1968

If a doc­tor adopts a prac­tice that is con­sid­ered “proper” by other skilled med­i­cal pro­fes­sion­als, he or she will not be held neg­li­gent only be­cause some­thing went wrong.

In­dian Med­i­cal As­so­ci­a­tion vs V.P. Shan­tha, 1995

The pa­tient is like a con­sumer. The doc­tor ren­ders ‘ser­vice’ and can be pro­ceeded against for ‘de­fi­ciency in ser­vice’ un­der the Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion Act, 1986.

Dr Suresh Gupta vs Gov­ern­ment of NCT of Delhi & Anr, 2004

If a pa­tient's death re­sults from er­ror of judg­ment or an ac­ci­dent, there’ll be civil li­a­bil­ity. Crim­i­nal li­a­bil­ity is only for ‘gross neg­li­gence’, ‘reck­less­ness’.

Ja­cob Mathew vs State Of Pun­jab & Anr, 2005

Doc­tors should not be held crim­i­nally re­spon­si­ble un­less there is prima fa­cie ev­i­dence of a cred­i­ble gov­ern­ment doc­tor sup­port­ing charges of rash and neg­li­gent act.

Nizam In­sti­tute Of Med­i­cal Sciences vs Pras­anth S. Dhananka, 2009

Ex­em­plary dam­ages of Rs 1 cr awarded to vic­tim, a soft­ware engi­neer, who suf­fered per­ma­nent dis­abil­ity due to med­i­cal neg­li­gence at a gov­ern­ment hos­pi­tal in Andhra Pradesh.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.