The medical law reporters for Indian doctors
The medical law reporters for Indian doctors

Issue

 Back
May 2024

Issuing opinions / certificates without physically examining patients is professional misconduct but removing doctors name from MCI Register is not the only punishment, holds Delhi High Court

Dr. Neena Raizada v/s Medical Council Of India Through Its Secretary & Ors.
17MLCD (j175) | Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Judgement in favour of: Doctor

Primary doctor telephonically instructing without physically examining the patient is negligent, not the doctor who followed those instructions – A clear verdict by the Court

Maya Sharma & Ors. v/s Raj Hospital & Ors.
17MLCD (j180) | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Judgement in favour of: Patient

A mere adjustment of charges / lucrative discount / package offered by hospital to patient is not an “indicator of medical negligence” declares court

Mahesh Gautam v/s Fortis Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd. & Ors.
17MLCD (j195) | Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Judgement in favour of: Doctor

Post-delivery leave does not “exonerate” the obstetrician from her liability to prescribe antibiotics while discharging the patient observes court

Dr. Fenol Gemma v/s Shaju AX & Ors.
17MLCD (j201) | Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram
Judgement in favour of: Patient

Prescription written illegibly without recording complaint / symptoms / history / diagnosis / clinical findings “reflects the casual approach” but is not negligence, concurs Delhi High Court

Baljit Singh v/s Delhi Medical Council & Anr.
17MLCD (j206) | Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Judgement in favour of: Doctor

“Doctors may have to face unnecessary humiliation" in medical negligence cases observes Kerala High Court - Directs “time bound immediate investigation”

Ushakumari O. & Ors. v/s State of Kerela & Ors.
17MLCD (j209) | Kerala High Court, Ernakulam
Judgement in favour of: None

Hospital files criminal case and also withholds deceased patient’s body to recover fees already covered under CGHS – “Barbaric, inhumane, torturous and heinous” observes Court

Bego Devi & Anr. v/s Fortis Hospital & Ors.
17MLCD (j211) | Chandigarh Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Judgement in favour of: Patient

Starting ATT treatment merely on clinical suspicion is not enough – Failure to follow up with expansive diagnostic tests / referring patient to consultants is negligence

Kanika Das v/s Surya Polyclinic & Anr.
17MLCD (j216) | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Judgement in favour of: Patient



Know Your Journal

How To Get Maximum

  • Publishes ‘real time judgments’ on medical negligence from higher courts
  • Every judgment is further summarized in simple, non-legal language
  • Comprehensively guides a doctor on avoiding MedLegal issues
  • Suggests practically useful ‘Do’s & Don’ts’ in day-to-day practice
  • Cases selected / analyzed solely from a doctor’s viewpoint
Testimonials FAQs Get Complimentary Copy
×