Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 139 views

    Evidence Law Synopsis SEM 5

    Uploaded by

    Ashish Singh
    This document summarizes a case, V. Kishan Rao v Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital & Anr. The District Forum found the respondent hospital negligent in their treatment of the complainant's wife and ordered compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. The State Commission overturned this, finding no proof of negligence. However, the District Forum relied on evidence from the respondent's own doctor admitting wrong treatment for malaria, while the death certificate cited malaria as the cause of death. The researcher aims to analyze if evidence law was properly followed in this case and provide a critical analysis. The methodology will be a doctrinal analysis of the case and concepts to recognize any flaws and appreciate the purpose and objectives in light of society.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Evidence Law Synopsis SEM 5

    Uploaded by

    Ashish Singh
    139 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a case, V. Kishan Rao v Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital & Anr. The District Forum found the respondent hospital negligent in their treatment of the complainant's wife and ordered compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. The State Commission overturned this, finding no proof of negligence. However, the District Forum relied on evidence from the respondent's own doctor admitting wrong treatment for malaria, while the death certificate cited malaria as the cause of death. The researcher aims to analyze if evidence law was properly followed in this case and provide a critical analysis. The methodology will be a doctrinal analysis of the case and concepts to recognize any flaws and appreciate the purpose and objectives in light of society.

    Original Description:

    indian evidence act

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a case, V. Kishan Rao v Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital & Anr. The District Forum found the respondent hospital negligent in their treatment of the complainant's wife and ordered compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. The State Commission overturned this, finding no proof of negligence. However, the District Forum relied on evidence from the respondent's own doctor admitting wrong treatment for malaria, while the death certificate cited malaria as the cause of death. The researcher aims to analyze if evidence law was properly followed in this case and provide a critical analysis. The methodology will be a doctrinal analysis of the case and concepts to recognize any flaws and appreciate the purpose and objectives in light of society.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    139 views2 pages

    Evidence Law Synopsis SEM 5

    Uploaded by

    Ashish Singh
    This document summarizes a case, V. Kishan Rao v Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital & Anr. The District Forum found the respondent hospital negligent in their treatment of the complainant's wife and ordered compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. The State Commission overturned this, finding no proof of negligence. However, the District Forum relied on evidence from the respondent's own doctor admitting wrong treatment for malaria, while the death certificate cited malaria as the cause of death. The researcher aims to analyze if evidence law was properly followed in this case and provide a critical analysis. The methodology will be a doctrinal analysis of the case and concepts to recognize any flaws and appreciate the purpose and objectives in light of society.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case Comment on V.

    Kishan Rao v Nikhil Super Specialty


    Hospital & Anr.1
    Name of the Case: V. Kishan Rao v Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital & Anr.
    Citation: [(2010) 5 SCC 513]
    Bench: Division Bench comprising of G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
    Legal Issues Involved: In the affidavit, which was filed by one Dr. Venkateswar Rao who
    is a Medical Practitioner and the Managing Director of the respondent No. 1 before the
    District Forum, it was admitted that patient was removed from respondent No. 1 to the
    Yashoda Hospital being accompanied by the doctor of the respondent No. 1. From the
    particulars noted at the time of admission of the patient in Yashoda Hospital it is clear that the
    patient was sent to Yashoda Hospital in a very precarious condition and was virtually,
    clinically dead. On the complaint of the appellant that his wife was not given proper
    treatment and the respondent No. 1 was negligent in treating the patient the District Forum,
    on a detailed examination of the facts, came to a finding that there was negligence on the part
    of the respondent No. 1 and as such the District Forum ordered that the complainant is
    entitled for refund of Rs. 10,000/- and compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs and also entitled to costs
    of Rs. 2,000/-. The District Forum relied on the evidence of Dr. Venkateswar Rao who was
    examined on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Dr. Rao categorically deposed "I have not
    treated the case for malaria fever". But the death certificate given by the Yashoda Hospital
    disclosed that the patient died due to "cardio respiratory arrest and malaria". In view of the
    aforesaid finding the District Forum came to the conclusion that the patient was subjected to
    wrong treatment and awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs and other directions as mentioned
    above in favour of the appellant. Before the District Forum, on behalf of the respondent No.
    1, it was argued that the complaint sought to prove Yashoda Hospital record without
    following the provisions of Sections 61, 64, 74 and 75 of Evidence Act. The Forum overruled
    the objection. State Forum found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
    complainant failed to establish any negligence on the part of the hospital authorities and the
    findings of the District Forum were overturned by the State Commission. In the order of the
    1

    Evidence Law, Research Project Synopsis; Submitted to Dr. Vipull Vinod; Submitted by Sahith
    Reddy, Roll Number 55, Semester V, Dr. RML National Law University, Lucknow.
    1

    State Commission there is a casual reference to the effect that "there is also no expert opinion
    to state that the line of treatment adopted by the appellant/opposite party No. 1 Hospital is
    wrong or is negligent".

    SCOPE

    OF

    THE

    STUDY: In this research, the main objective is analysis of the

    Judgment given in the case mentioned above and to study as to whether the position of law as
    settled by the evidence law has been properly followed or not in this case. The researcher
    would also like to provide a critical note over the subject matter of this case.

    RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: Research Methodology in the making of this Project


    will be Doctrinal Research Methodology. This Methodology will be best suited for the
    Topic of the Project. A detailed study of the above case and concepts emerging therefrom
    will be done and analysis and conclusions will been made in order to recognize related flaws,
    if any, and to appreciate its purpose along with its objective(s) in light of a transforming
    Indian society.

    You might also like