What
is Law
     Right
of Doctors
     Responsibilities    
Negligence    
Consents     Records    
Cases

       

Legislations    
Medical
Ethics
      FAQ’s

   

    

Laboratory

     

  • SMT.
    SUPRITI MODAK v. DR. GOKUL CH MODAK


    II (2001) CPJ 219

     

    WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMISSION,
    CALCUTTA


     

    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal -
    Medical Negligence – Blood report of baby conducted thrice
    at different pathological laboratories, results showed
    different reading of bilirubin – Negligence alleged on part
    of physician and pathological laboratories – Dispute
    involved consideration of voluminous evidence – Forum
    declined to exercise jurisdiction – Order of Forum upheld in
    appeal.

     

    Result : Appeal dismissed.

     

    Order

      

    Mr. Justice S.C. Datta, President – This appeal is directed
    against order dated 30.4.1999 whereby the Forum declined to
    exercise jurisdiction vested in it in the matter of trial of
    the case. The forum was of opinion that the resolution of
    the dispute between the parties involves consideration of
    voluminous evidence and evidence of experts in the
    respective fields. The Forum noticed that the first question
    to be determined was whether the caesarean operation was
    necessary or not. During hearing it transpires that the baby
    was born by caesarean operation and there was definite
    allegation about negligence on the part of the attending
    physician and pathological laboratories in the matter of
    treatment of the baby. It is accepted that blood report of
    the baby was conducted thrice at different pathological
    laboratories and the results showed different readings of
    bilirubin. Ultimately, the baby was shifted to NRS Hospital
    at Calcutta whereby the grace of God the disease was
    properly diagnosed and the baby was cured. The Forum noticed
    that in order to prove the allegations regarding negligence
    on the part of the opposite parties, quite a few witnesses
    were required to be examined and these witnesses include
    Medical/Gynaecological/Pathological/ experts. The Forum
    declined to adjudicate the dispute relying on the ratio of
    decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996
    SC 550. We have considered the submissions of the learned
    Counsels for the parties and examined the impugned judgement.
    We find that the Forum was perfectly justified in not
    entertaining the dispute. For the reasons aforesaid, we
    decline to entertain the appeal. The appeal be dismissed.
    The petitioner may seek remedy before the appropriate Forum,
    if so advised.

        

    Appeal dismissed.

         

  • PUROHIT
    CHARITABLE LABORATORY – Appellant
    versus VIJAY KUMAR – Respondent


    III (2001) CPJ 239

       

    More
    Details         
    Click
    Here


         


         


 Back

  


    




 

     

    
     

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

   
    

Laboratory
     

  • SMT. SUPRITI MODAK v. DR. GOKUL CH MODAK
    II (2001) CPJ 219
     
    WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMISSION, CALCUTTA
     
    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Appeal - Medical Negligence – Blood report of baby conducted thrice at different pathological laboratories, results showed different reading of bilirubin – Negligence alleged on part of physician and pathological laboratories – Dispute involved consideration of voluminous evidence – Forum declined to exercise jurisdiction – Order of Forum upheld in appeal.
     
    Result : Appeal dismissed.
     
    Order
      
    Mr. Justice S.C. Datta, President – This appeal is directed against order dated 30.4.1999 whereby the Forum declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in the matter of trial of the case. The forum was of opinion that the resolution of the dispute between the parties involves consideration of voluminous evidence and evidence of experts in the respective fields. The Forum noticed that the first question to be determined was whether the caesarean operation was necessary or not. During hearing it transpires that the baby was born by caesarean operation and there was definite allegation about negligence on the part of the attending physician and pathological laboratories in the matter of treatment of the baby. It is accepted that blood report of the baby was conducted thrice at different pathological laboratories and the results showed different readings of bilirubin. Ultimately, the baby was shifted to NRS Hospital at Calcutta whereby the grace of God the disease was properly diagnosed and the baby was cured. The Forum noticed that in order to prove the allegations regarding negligence on the part of the opposite parties, quite a few witnesses were required to be examined and these witnesses include Medical/Gynaecological/Pathological/ experts. The Forum declined to adjudicate the dispute relying on the ratio of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 550. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsels for the parties and examined the impugned judgement. We find that the Forum was perfectly justified in not entertaining the dispute. For the reasons aforesaid, we decline to entertain the appeal. The appeal be dismissed. The petitioner may seek remedy before the appropriate Forum, if so advised.
        
    Appeal dismissed.
         

  • PUROHIT CHARITABLE LABORATORY – Appellant versus VIJAY KUMAR – Respondent
    III (2001) CPJ 239
       
    More Details          Click Here
         

         

 Back
  

    

 

By |2022-07-20T16:43:47+00:00July 20, 2022|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Doctor’s Favour / Laboratory

About the Author: