What
is Law
     Right
of Doctors
     Responsibilities    
Negligence    
Consents     Records    
Cases

       

Legislations    
Medical
Ethics
      FAQ’s

   

    

Gastroenterologist

     

  • Brij
    Mohan Kher v. Dr. N. H. Banka & Aur.

    1995 (1) CPJ 99: 1994 (3) CPR 197
    (NC)

      

    The complainant alleged that he
    suffered heart attack, which was not
    diagnosed by the opposite parties, and
    instead he was treated for other
    ailment due to which his heart had
    been damaged and claimed compensation
    of Rs.55.9 lakhs.

      

    On careful consideration of the
    evidence adduced in the case, the
    National Commission held that the
    complainant had severe upper abdominal
    infection and due to prompt and expert
    treatment he was saved from what might
    otherwise have led to his death on
    account of septicemia. No negligence,
    lack of reasonable skill, care and
    caution or deficiency in service of
    any kind has been established, and
    dismissed the complaint with costs of
    Rs 10,000 payable to both the opposite
    parties separately for indulging in
    speculative litigation and misusing
    the provisions of the C. P. Act.

       


        


 Back

  


    




 

     

    
     

What is Law     Right of Doctors     Responsibilities     Negligence     Consents     Records     Cases
       
Legislations     Medical Ethics      FAQ’s

   
    

Gastroenterologist
     

  • Brij Mohan Kher v. Dr. N. H. Banka & Aur.
    1995 (1) CPJ 99: 1994 (3) CPR 197 (NC)
      
    The complainant alleged that he suffered heart attack, which was not diagnosed by the opposite parties, and instead he was treated for other ailment due to which his heart had been damaged and claimed compensation of Rs.55.9 lakhs.
      
    On careful consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the National Commission held that the complainant had severe upper abdominal infection and due to prompt and expert treatment he was saved from what might otherwise have led to his death on account of septicemia. No negligence, lack of reasonable skill, care and caution or deficiency in service of any kind has been established, and dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs 10,000 payable to both the opposite parties separately for indulging in speculative litigation and misusing the provisions of the C. P. Act.
       

        

 Back
  

    

 

By |2022-07-20T16:43:51+00:00July 20, 2022|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Doctor’s Favour / Gastroenterologist

About the Author: