Skip to main content

No ‘medical negligence’ if diagnosed as per standard of medical practice

In DR. M. KOCHAR vs ISPITA SEAL, while holding no cure/ no success is not negligence and fastening the liability on the treating doctor is not justified, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held as it took judicial notice of the fact that increasing number of people are opting for in- vitro fertilization due to growing problem of infertility while acknowledging that its failure cannot be attributed to the treating doctor given the complexity of procedure and medically recorded evidence of low success rate in women above 35 years of age.

The NCDRC bench of presiding officer Ajit Bharihoke and member Dr SM Kantikar said so while setting aside the order of the State Commission by which a doctor was asked to pay Rs 15 lakh compensation to her client after the IVF in her case failed.

“In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a complex series of procedures used to treat fertility or genetic problems and assist with the conception of a child. IVF involves several steps — ovulation induction, egg retrieval, sperm retrieval, fertilization and embryo transfer. One cycle of IVF can take about two weeks, and more than one cycle may be required. Infertility is a growing problem in India as well with the number of IVF cycles increasing,” the NCDRC bench said.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/no-cure-no-success-not-negligence-says-ncdrc-sets-aside-rs-15l-liability-doctor-ivf-failure-read-judgment/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more