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

When To File a Second FIR – Supreme Court Reiterates

The Supreme Court's ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025 INSC 248) provides much-needed clarity on the circumstances under which a second FIR can be maintained. By holding that a second FIR is justified in cases involving counter-complaints, distinct scopes, broader conspiracies, or newly emerged facts, the Read more »

UNITECH Limited & ors. v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2021, decided on 07-02-2021

The presence of an arbitration clause does oust the jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases though, it still needs to be decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a public law remedy can justifiably be invoked. Read more »

Anil Yashwant Karande Vs. Mangal Anil Karande, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6257

The court observed that, by submitting an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restoration of conjugal rights within the same roof, a spouse cannot claim that they would force another person to cohabit with them and treat them cruelly at the same time. 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.