Current Issue

December 2022

Supreme Court questions the rationale behind shifting the patient to a distant hospital if appropriate facilities were available locally

Harnek Singh & Ors. v/s Gurmit Singh & Ors.
15MLCD (j467) | Supreme Court of India
Judgement in favour of: Patient


“The old method was still in use and there is nothing … to prove such method was legally abandoned / stopped” – A reasonable standard of practice and not negligence holds National Commission

Manjulata Garg v/s Dr. R. C. Mishra & Ors.
15MLCD (j471) | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Judgement in favour of: Doctor


A homeopathic doctor administering allopathic medicine during emergencies acts as a “Good Samaritan” and is not negligent, holds National Consumer Commission (majority view)

Chandra Prakash Prasad v/s Dr. Sarbajit Singh & Anr.
15MLCD (j475) | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Judgement in favour of: Patient


Wrong FNAC report is not always negligence and "should always be interpreted in the context of the triple test,” observes National Consumer Commission

Sajidah Shaukath v/s Messrs Anand Diagnostic Laboratory & Ors.
15MLCD (j479) | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Judgement in favour of: Doctor


"Radiological investigations are indirect evidence, whereas the clinical assessment and arthroscopy are directly helpful to arrive proper diagnosis" – National Consumer Commission

Dr. Harpreet Singh & Anr. v/s Harkanwar Singh & Anr.
15MLCD (j483) | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Judgement in favour of: Doctor


Father was busy compromising with the vehicle owner and delayed transfer of the injured son but the doctor who provided emergency care faces court for 19 years – Long live justice!

Gurmeet Kaur v/s Dr. Tej Pal Singh Sandhu & Anr.
15MLCD (j487) | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Judgement in favour of: Doctor


Court finds that the doctor deposing as an expert witness was to get half of the compensation awarded – Is merely referring to him as a “highly interested witness" enough?

E. Syamala & Ors. v/s Dr. Alexander Abraham & Ors.
15MLCD (j491) | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Judgement in favour of: Doctor


 Know Your MLCD
    From the Editors Desk
  • Handing Over The Baton – Welcome Dr. Shreekant Shetty, our new Editor

    Read
  • What are the changes that have happened in your journal?

    Read
  • We want you to be acquainted with both sides of the coin

    Read
  • How is this journal made?

    Read
  • How to get the maximum out of this journal

    Read
  • Is this journal the need of the hour?

    Read
  • The First Editorial

    Read

  • Publishes ‘real time judgments’ on medical negligence from higher courts
  • Every judgment is further summarized in simple, non-legal language
  • Comprehensively guides a doctor on avoiding MedLegal issues
  • Suggests practically useful ‘Do’s & Don’ts’ in day-to-day practice
  • Cases selected / analyzed solely from a doctor’s viewpoint
Testimonials FAQs Get Complimentary Copy