advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
west bengal state
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – The State Commission, therefore, directed the Appellants to jointly and severally pay the Respondent (i) Rs.77,023/- towards expenditure upto 30.05.2001; (ii) Rs.70,000/- as damages; and (iii) Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs within a period of 45 days from the date of the communication of the order.- It is an admitted fact that the Respondent was admitted for gallbladder surgery in Appellant/Institute and as a part of the anesthesia procedure a cylindrical pipe was inserted inside his throat and since it could not be placed in the desired position despite several attempts, the operation had to be abandoned. It was later confirmed that the intubation was unsuccessful because of a jutting cartilage inside the throat which was a pre-existing structural problem in the Respondent’s throat. = it was for the Appellants as medical professionals to have got all the tests done and once there was a problem with the intubation, they should not have made repeated attempts to thrust the pipe, which resulted in serious injuries leading to other complications. – the Respondent had developed a life threatening condition because of the pharyngeal tear close to larynx and multiple air filled cavity in Appellant No.1/Institute – the due and reasonable care was not taken by the Appellants in the treatment of the Respondent while intubating the cylindrical pipe in connection with the anesthesia. While the problem was apparently caused because of a structural defect in the Respondent’s throat, severe damage could have been averted or minimized if the Appellants had been more sensitive and careful and not insisted in pushing the tube several times despite knowing that there were problems. There is no other explanation for the extensive and severe injuries caused inside the Respondent’s throat. We are also unable to accept the contention of the Appellants that the onus was on the Respondent to have disclosed the relevant facts regarding structural defects since there is no evidence that he was aware of this problem. If indeed he had been aware, there was no reason for him to have withheld this fact.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2009 (Against the order dated 16.02.2009 in SC Case No. 100/O/2001 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata) 1. ILS Hospital Previously known as Institute of Laparoscopic Surgery Jeewansatya, DD-6 Salt Lake City, Sector-1 Kolkata-700064 2. Dr. Om Tantia Director … Continue reading
the recruitment process for the post of a Homoeopathic Officer for a Gram Panchayat Level Dispensary situated at Jhilu–I Gram Panchayat under Mongalkote Block in the district of Burdwan= the Guidelines for engagement of part-time Homoeopathic doctors in the Gram Panchayat Level Dispensaries are not related to the Guidelines for engagement of ‘AYUSH’ doctors for Gram Panchayat Level Dispensaries which falls under the National Rural Health Mission. As such, the ad-interim prayer of the petitioner is not entertained since this Court is, prima facie, satisfied that the Guidelines for recruitment of ‘AYUSH’ doctors is under a separate Scheme altogether which has no rational nexus with the Guidelines as contained in the notification dated 22nd February, 2010
1 43 11.01.2012 pg. WP No. 22635 of 2011 Dr. Abdul Basar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Subir Sanyal Mr. Saikat Banerjee Md. Hasanuz Zaman … For the petitioner Mr. Ram Mohan Pal … For the State Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner in Court today be kept on record. The petitioner … Continue reading
deficiency in service on the part of the Air Carrier and its GSA.=The facts of the case are that the above-mentioned cargo/consignment (TV film cassette) was handed over to the OP through the complainant’s shipping agent on 05.11.1998. The consignment did not reach the consignee in Belgrade. After prolonged correspondence, the OP informed the complainant/respondent only on 21.06.1999 that the consignment had gone missing from the Paris airport and that further time would be needed for investigation and settlement of the consignor’s claim. After further wait, the complainant sent an Advocate’s letter to the OP on 20.08.1999. Finally, a reply dated 13.09.1999 was received from the Advocate of the OP denying any liability on the part of the OP to meet the claim but requesting the complainant to await the decision of Air France which was involved in carrying the consignment from Paris to Belgrade. Finally, on not getting any response, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission on 07.02.2001, with the result already noticed above.= As regards the substantive question of compensation/damage for the loss of the registered cargo, it is clear from the pleadings that the consignment was lost in transit at Paris from where it was expected to be carried to Belgrade by Air France and not by Kuwait Airways. It is not the case of the respondent/complainant that at the time of booking of the cargo, it declared its nature and value and paid the appropriate additional charges in accordance with Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the CA. Act. In view of this, the liability of the Air Carrier (or its GSA) cannot exceed the limit laid down in Rule 22 (2) of the said Rules. This being the legal position governing the liability of the Air Carrier the compensation that could be awarded under the provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot exceed the prescribed amount which is US $ (20×12) = US $ 240. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, this is the settled law on this issue which was also upheld by this Commission in its judgment in the case of The Manager, Air India Ltd. and Anr. v India Everbright Shipping and Trading Co. [II (2001) CPJ 32 (NC)].
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2006 (From the order dated 31.01.2006 in Complaint Case no. 17/O/2001 of the West Bengal State Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission, Kolkata) National Travel Services 5 Chitrakoot Building 230A, A.J.C. Bose Road Appellant Kolkata – 700 020 versus M/s Gaurang Films Proprietor GMB Films (P) Ltd. Respondent 23 Ganesh Chandra Avenue Kolkata … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 