Doctor’s Favour / Laboratory

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