Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 283 views

    SC Case 4

    Uploaded by

    krapanshu rathi
    The document summarizes a case regarding a complaint of medical negligence. The complainant's daughter had a fractured hand that required two plaster casts. The state commission dismissed the complaint, finding no negligence and that the complainant was not a consumer since treatment was free. The national commission agreed, noting that an initial temporary cast is normal procedure and the doctor was experienced. It rejected the argument that free treatment as part of employment terms made the complainant a consumer, as this was not argued below. The key issue was whether the patient should be considered a consumer.

    Copyright:

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

    SC Case 4

    Uploaded by

    krapanshu rathi
    283 views1 page
    The document summarizes a case regarding a complaint of medical negligence. The complainant's daughter had a fractured hand that required two plaster casts. The state commission dismissed the complaint, finding no negligence and that the complainant was not a consumer since treatment was free. The national commission agreed, noting that an initial temporary cast is normal procedure and the doctor was experienced. It rejected the argument that free treatment as part of employment terms made the complainant a consumer, as this was not argued below. The key issue was whether the patient should be considered a consumer.

    Original Title

    SC case 4

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a case regarding a complaint of medical negligence. The complainant's daughter had a fractured hand that required two plaster casts. The state commission dismissed the complaint, finding no negligence and that the complainant was not a consumer since treatment was free. The national commission agreed, noting that an initial temporary cast is normal procedure and the doctor was experienced. It rejected the argument that free treatment as part of employment terms made the complainant a consumer, as this was not argued below. The key issue was whether the patient should be considered a consumer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    283 views1 page

    SC Case 4

    Uploaded by

    krapanshu rathi
    The document summarizes a case regarding a complaint of medical negligence. The complainant's daughter had a fractured hand that required two plaster casts. The state commission dismissed the complaint, finding no negligence and that the complainant was not a consumer since treatment was free. The national commission agreed, noting that an initial temporary cast is normal procedure and the doctor was experienced. It rejected the argument that free treatment as part of employment terms made the complainant a consumer, as this was not argued below. The key issue was whether the patient should be considered a consumer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Malka Tarannum

    V
    Dr. C. P. Gupta
    SYNOPSIS
    FACTS
    Facts leading to this Appeal are:-
    There was negligence in applying (the first) plaster cast on the complainant's daughter's fractured
    hand, which led to the need to apply the plaster for the second time.
    In appeal, the State Commission dismissed the complaint and also held that the complainant was
    not a consumer since he was not charged any fee for the treatment. In revision, the National
    Commission held that application of the plaster for the second time did not imply medical
    negligence on the first occassion since application of POP slab (also known as temporary cast)
    was a normal procedure adopted in the first instance whenever there was swelling at the site of
    the injury

    ISSUES RAISED
    The issues that have been raised are as follows:-

     Is patient to be considered as consumer?


    ORDER
    The Commission observed that the doctor who had applied the plaster in the first instance was a

    senior orthopaedic specialist with considerable experience and the complainant could not dispute

    his professional decision on the basis of mere allegations, without any expert evidence. The

    Commission also rejected the complainant's husband's contention that he was a consumer since

    he was covered by the Supreme Court decision in Laxman Thamappa Kotgiri v G.M., Central

    Railway & Others and that receiving free medical treatment was part of the terms and conditions

    of his service. It held that the complainant took no such plea before the Fora below and no

    evidence was produced.

    You might also like