//
archives

Commission

This tag is associated with 3 posts

No medical negligence – complainant died – Lrs not paid any attention – expert doctor died – = After administration of the above injection, cold blood was transfused in flagrant violation of the basic medical norm or practice and within 2/3 minutes of pushing the injection this cold blood transfusion instantly had a cascading effect on his wife and she developed convulsion-condition. According to the complainant on 15.02.97, the patient developed restlessness, insomania, severe pains all over her body and also breathing trouble. Complainant alleged that no care was taken by the Staff Nurse or the doctor and when on 16.02.97 he went to the Hospital his wife was groaning and crying. Complainant further alleged that on 16.2.97, the Duty Medical Officer without consulting Dr. R.N. Duttainstructed the nurse to inject two injections namely Fortwin I vial and Calmpose I vial to the Refractory Anemia patient in total disregard of all medical norms and ultimately his wife expired.= A perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission, while allowing the complaint, has placed substantial reliance upon the expert opinion of Dr. S.K. DuttaChaoudhary, produced on behalf of the Complainant. The Commission has observed that:- “In paragraphs 9,10,11 of his Affidavit (page 92 & 93 of the Paper Book) this expert doctor has opined that a person suffering from ailment or having low blood pressure on poor heart condition is never administered two medicines namely injection Calmpose and injection Fortwin and according to his opinion the Cardiac failure as recorded in the Death Certificate of the patient was directly due to the administration of the said two medicines in such a physical condition of the patient as has been already described above. The doctor has further stated that supporting treatment by way of Oxygen and Saline could have saved her. With this opinion of expert is added the circumstances that there is no record forthcoming from the O.Ps to show that the blood pressure or pulse rate of the patient was ever checked by Dr.Halder during his period of crisis before the fatal injection was administered. It is also on record that this Dr. Halder who was In-Charge did not requisition any Oxygen cylinder or mask or saline to save the life of the patient.” 4. However, during the course of hearing of this appeal, it was observed that the above medial expert examined on behalf of the Complainant before the State Commission had died before the OPs had any opportunity to cross examine him. It was therefore, decided to refer the matter to the All India Institute Medical Sciences, New Delhi for opinion. Accordingly, a four member Medical Board was constituted by the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS. Its report has been received and perused. = In another significant development during the hearing of this appeal, the Complainant Shri N.C. Majumdar passed away. The application to bring the LRs on record was allowed on 26.7.2012. However, notices sent to the LRs on 27.4.2011, 14.9.2011, 01.10.2012 and on 14.5.2013 have not yielded any results. They have remained unclaimed. It is learnt from the Registry that this amount was not withdrawn by the respondent/Complainant and is still available as deposit in the name of the Registrar of this Commission.- In the reference made by this Commission to the AIIMS, specific opinion had been sought on four points. The expert report received is directly with reference to those four points. They are listed below:- “Question (i). Whether the reaction/convulsion which the patient developed immediately after transfusion of blood on 13.02.97 is attributable to the transfusion of cold blood without bringing it to the level of normal human body temperature? Answer: There is no evidence of any reaction/convulsion on 13.02.1997 after the blood transfusion as per given medical record. Question (ii).Whether the reactions/convulsions which the patient developed after transfusion of blood on 15.02.97, were managed properly? Answer: There is no record of any convulsion on 15.02.1997. Patient had rigors (shivering) on 15.02.1997, which was managed accordingly. Question (iii). Whether the administration of injections, Calmpose and Fortwin on 16.02.97 was contra-indicative keeping in view the health condition, including the cardiac condition, of the patient ? Answer: Medical records do not mention any details of patient cardiac conditions. According to medical records inj. Fortwin & inj. Calmpose were administered intramuscularly (I/M) due to restlessness and pain. However, the reasons of restlessness and pain is difficult to assess from the medical record. Question (iv) Whether the death of the deceased on 16.02.97 is directly or indirectly attributable to the said complications which followed after blood transfusion on 13.02.97 and after administration of injections on 16.02.97. Answer: It seems unlikely that the blood transfusion on 13.02.1997 resulting in the event of death on 16.02.1997. It also seems unlikely that intramuscular (I/M) administration of Inj. Fortwin and Inj. Calmpose would have caused the cardio-respiratory arrest. Her primary condition of refractory anaemia is also not recorded properly in the medical recortds.” 7. The complaint petition before the State Commission itself accepts that the deceased was suffering from the condition of ‘refractive anaemia’. As per the medical lexicon, it is a condition of unresponsiveness to treatment. Considering this in the light of the opinion categorically expressed in the report of the AIIMS, the finding of State Commission that it was a case of gross negligence cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently, the appeal of Mission of Mercy Hospital/OP-1 before the State Commission is allowed and the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission in Consumer Complaint No.339/0/1997 is set aside, qua the appellant. The deposit of Rs.1 lakh made by the Appellant together with the accrued interest and the statutory amount of Rs.35,000/- are directed to be released in favour of the Appellant.

published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130816122903619FA56506%20.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI       FIRST APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2006 (Against the order dated 06.06.2006 in S.C.Case No.339/O/1997 of the State Commission, West Bengal) The Mission of Mercy Hospital & Research Centre, 125/1, Park Street, Town of Calcutta, Calcutta-700017                                                                                                                                               …..Appellant Versus 1. Shri N.C.Majumder S/o Late Surendra Kumar Majumder Residing at 89, S.G.D.Road, Birati, Post Office –Birati, … Continue reading

We are in this case not concerned with any dispute that is pending before the Scrutiny Committee, this is a case of total non-compliance of the conditions stipulated in the notification (information to the candidates) wherein it has been specifically stated that a candidate claiming to be SC/ST/BC must have a certificate in support of his/her claim from a competent authority specified in the West Bengal Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994. In our view, the guidelines in in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) or the brochure issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi would not override the specific conditions stipulated in the notification (information to the candidates) of compliance of the provisions of the West Bengal Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994. In such circumstances we find no error in the decision taken by the Commission in not entertaining the application of the respondent as a member of the ST Community due to non-production of the certificate from the competent authority specified in the above-mentioned Act. 17. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the Judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, we are inclined to record the submission of the learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant that the respondent would be appointed as a judicial officer in the West Bengal Judicial Service consequent to the examination conducted in the year 2010 since he has produced the Certificate issued by the competent authority under The West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994. Appeal is, therefore, allowed as above, however there will be no order as to costs.

Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 4282 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) NO.29831 of 2011] REGISTRAR GENERAL, CALCUTTA HIGH COURT .. APPELLANT Versus SHRINIVAS PRASAD SHAH AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS J U D G M E M T K. S. Radhakrishnan, J 1. Leave … Continue reading

Title 18 U. S. C. §1464 bans the broadcast of “any obscene, indecent, or profane language.” The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) began enforcing §1464 in the 1970’s. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, this Court found that the Commission’s order banning George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” monologue passed First Amendment scrutiny, but did not decide whether “an occasional expletive . . . would justify any sanction,” id., at 750. In the ensuing years, the Commission went from strictly observing the narrow circumstances of Pacifica to indicating that it would assess the full context of allegedly indecent broadcasts rather than limit its regulation to an index of indecent words or pictures. However, it continued to note the important difference between isolated and repeated broadcasts of indecent material. And in a 2001 policy statement, it even included, as one of the factors significant to the determination of what was patently offensive, “whether the material dwells on or repeats at length” the offending description or depiction. It was against this regulatory background that the three incidents at issue took place. Two concern isolated utterances of obscene words during two live broadcasts aired by respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc. The third occurred during an episode of a television show broadcast by respondent ABC Television Network, when the nude buttocks of an adult female character were shown for approximately seven seconds and the side of her breast for a moment. After these incidents, but before the Commission issued Notices of Apparent Lia- —————— *Together with Federal Communications Commission v. ABC, Inc., et al. (see this Court’s Rule 12.4), also on certiorari to the same court. 2 FCC v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC. Syllabus bility to Fox and ABC, the Commission issued its Golden Globes Order, declaring for the first time that fleeting expletives could be actionable. It then concluded that the Fox and ABC broadcasts violated this new standard. It found the Fox broadcasts indecent, but declined to propose forfeitures. The Second Circuit reversed, finding the Commission’s decision to modify its indecency enforcement regime to regulate fleeting expletives arbitrary and capricious. This Court reversed and remanded for the Second Circuit to address respondents’ First Amendment challenges. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U. S. 502. On remand, the Second Circuit found the policy unconstitutionally vague and invalidated it in its entirety. In the ABC case, the Commission found the display actionably indecent, and imposed a $27,500 forfeiture on each of the 45 ABC-affiliated stations that aired the episode. The Second Circuit vacated the order in light of its Fox decision. Held: Because the Commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent, the Commission’s standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague. Pp. 11–18. (a) The fundamental principle that laws regulating persons or entities must give fair notice of what conduct is required or proscribed, see, e.g., Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391, is essential to the protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, see United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285, 304, which requires the invalidation of impermissibly vague laws. A conviction or punishment fails to comply with due process if the statute or regulation under which it is obtained “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.” Ibid. The void for vagueness doctrine addresses at least two connected but discrete due process concerns: Regulated parties should know what is required of them so they may act accordingly; and precision and guidance are necessary so that those enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary or discriminatory way. When speech is involved, rigorous adherence to those requirements is necessary to ensure that ambiguity does not chill protected speech. Pp. 11–12. (b) These concerns are implicated here, where the broadcasters claim that the lengthy procedural history of their cases shows that they did not have fair notice of what was forbidden. Under the 2001 Guidelines in force when the broadcasts occurred, a key consideration was “whether the material dwell[ed] on or repeat[ed] at length” the offending description or depiction, but in the 2004 Golden Globes Order, issued after the broadcasts, the Commission changed course and held that fleeting expletives could be a statutory violation. It then Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 3 Syllabus applied this new principle to these cases. Its lack of notice to Fox and ABC of its changed interpretation failed to give them “fair notice of what is prohibited.” Williams, supra, at 304. Pp. 12–13. (c) Neither of the Government’s contrary arguments is persuasive. It claims that Fox cannot establish unconstitutional vagueness because the Commission declined to impose a forfeiture on Fox and said that it would not consider the indecent broadcast in renewing station licenses or in other contexts. But the Commission has the statutory power to take into account “any history of prior offenses” when setting a forfeiture penalty, 47 U. S. C. §503(b)(2)(E), and the due process protection against vague regulations “does not leave [regulated parties] . . . at the mercy of noblesse oblige.” United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. ___, ___. The challenged orders could also have an adverse impact on Fox’s reputation with audiences and advertisers alike. The Government argues that ABC had notice that its broadcast would be considered indecent. But an isolated statement in a 1960 Commission decision declaring that televising nudes might be contrary to §1464 does not suffice for the fair notice required when the Government intends to impose over a $1 million fine for allegedly impermissible speech. Moreover, previous Commission decisions had declined to find isolated and brief moments of nudity actionably indecent. In light of these agency decisions, and the absence of any notice in the 2001 Guidance that seven seconds of nude buttocks would be found indecent, ABC lacked constitutionally sufficient notice prior to being sanctioned. Pp. 13–17. (d) It is necessary to make three observations about this decision’s scope. First, because the Court resolves these cases on fair notice grounds under the Due Process Clause, it need not address the First Amendment implications of the Commission’s indecency policy or reconsider Pacifica at this time. Second, because the Court rules that Fox and ABC lacked notice at the time of their broadcasts that their material could be found actionably indecent under then-existing policies, the Court need not address the constitutionality of the current indecency policy as expressed in the Golden Globes Order and subsequent adjudications. Third, this opinion leaves the Commission free to modify its current indecency policy in light of its determination of the public interest and applicable legal requirements and leaves courts free to review the current, or any modified, policy in light of its content and application. Pp. 17–18. 613 F. 3d 317 (first case) and 404 Fed. Appx. 530 (second case), vacated and remanded.

  (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2011 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,076 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com