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

Shajahan Vs. State, (2018) 13 SCC 347

The court observed that, during the process of performing dacoity, if a dacoit murders a person, all the co-dacoits will also be held liable under section 396 IPC, even if they did not participate in the killing, and were only a part of the dacoity. Both 302 and 396 IPC have the same obligations for... Read more » Read more »

Criminal Case Maintainable Despite Pending Civil Suit for Cheque Bounce – Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court in Sri Lalji Kesha Vaid v. Sri Dayanand R. reaffirmed that criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, remain maintainable even if a civil suit for recovery of the same amount has been initiated. Citing Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra (2009) 13 SCC 729, the court... Read more » Read more »

Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, 2022 Scc Online J&K 565

The court observed that, a complaint under section 138 of NI Act, when an FIR of offences under section 420, 560 IPC was already filed with respect to circumstances of identical nature/ same transaction does not amount to forum shopping or double jeopardy. The offence under section 420 IPC is made during the issuance of... 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.