Neeraj Sud & Anr. Vs. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) & Anr. (2024 INSC 825)

In Neeraj Sud & Anr. vs. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) & Anr. (2024 INSC 825), the Supreme Court clarified that mere deterioration of a patient’s condition after surgery does not automatically indicate medical negligence. To establish negligence, it must be proven that the doctor failed to exercise due care or lacked the necessary skill or qualifications for the procedure. Relying on the Jacob Mathews v. State of Punjab (2005) decision, the Court reaffirmed the Bolam Test, which protects doctors who act in accordance with accepted medical practices. It also rejected the application of Res Ipsa Loquitur in the absence of evidence showing failure to exercise due skill. The Court overturned the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s compensation award, emphasizing that the doctor had the requisite qualifications and followed proper medical protocols, thereby reinforcing the importance of expert medical opinion and adherence to accepted standards in medico-legal cases.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Supreme Court Mandates Holistic Evaluation of Disabilities for MBBS Admissions, Rejects Mechanical Application of Disability Guidelines

In Omkar v. Union of India (2024 INSC 775), the Supreme Court held that MBBS admission for PwD candidates cannot be denied solely on the percentage of disability. Granting relief to a candidate with 45% speech and language disability, it ruled that assessment must consider the practical impact on course completion, not just numbers. Calling... Read more » Read more »

[Kotak Mahindra Bank (P) Ltd. v. Ambuj A. Kasliwal, (2021) 3 SCC 549] 16-02-2021

The Entire Waiver of Pre-deposit impermissible to file appeal before DRAT. Discretion of DRAT to reduce pre-deposit amount from 50% of debt due, held, is limited to reducing the pre-deposit to 25% thereof. The pre-deposit cannot under any circumstances be reduced below 25% of the debt due. Read more »

Union of India Vs. Pranav Srinivasan (2024 INSC 792)

In Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan (2024 INSC 792), the Supreme Court ruled that Pranav Srinivasan, a foreign national born in Singapore to Indian-origin parents, could not claim Indian citizenship under Article 8 of the Constitution or Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Pranav sought to resume his Indian citizenship based on his... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.