Medical negligence

Judgement on Abortion
  • Šilih v. Slovenia: The applicants in the case were Slovenian nationals, Ivan and Franja Šilih, whose 20-years old son Gregor died in hospital in May 1993. Gregor’s parents believed that his death had been the result of negligent medical practice. They initiated legal proceedings against the hospital and yet even after sixteen years later, the Slovenian courts had still not fully resolved the case. In 2009, the European Court ruled that the Slovenian authorities had failed to set up an effective independent judicial system so that the cause of death of medical patients can be determined. The Court found a violation of the applicants’ right to life.
  • Stratton V Swanlond: In the suit, Agnes of Stratton and her husband sought damages from surgeon John Swanlond for breach of contract. Agnes underwent surgery on her severely deformed hand based on the surgeon’s guarantee that he could fully repair it – but afterward, the hand remained mangled. Although the case was ultimately dismissed due to filing errors, it nonetheless established standards of care between a physician and his or her patient.
  • ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien and Another: Both cases will have significant consequences for medical malpractice litigation. Thomson Medical involved a claim for the upkeep costs of a child conceived following an IVF mix-up, resulting in the child’s biological father being a stranger rather than the husband of the child’s mother. The Court of Appeal, drawing on concepts of autonomy, recognized a novel head of damage loss of genetic affinity and awarded damages to the claimant.
  • Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien: The Singapore court said that the Bolam standard was doctor centred as it focused upon whether a responsible body of medical opinion would have given the advice in question. The need to obtain a patient’s informed consent to medical treatment, however, arose from the central principle that the patient had autonomy to decide such matters. In recognition of this, the Court concluded it was necessary to move towards a more patient-centric standard of disclosure. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board ,a landmark case in the UK also determined that the adequacy of disclosure was to be judged from the perspective of the patient, rather than from the perspective of clinicians.
  • Dr Arvind Shah vs. Kamlaben Kushwaha: The case was first commissioned and ordered appellant or the original opposite party (OP), Arvind Shah to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till payment and costs of Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the complainant or respondent, Kamlaben Kushwaha. The complainant claimed that the OP did not take due care while treating the son of the complainant, Prakash, who as a result succumbed to death. The appellant thus, appeals to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi challenging the order delivered by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The major concepts highlighted in the case is medical negligence and failure to provide basic information about the treatment to the patient. The court, however, held that the doctor should seek consent from the patient before his treatment and provide him with adequate information related to his treatment. The adequate information provided by the doctor should possibly mention the following points:
  1. The nature and procedure of the treatment and its purpose, benefits, and effect.
  2. Alternatives if any available.
  3. An overview of the substantial risks.
  4. Adverse effects of refusing treatment
  • Arseculeratne v. Priyani Soysa: The plaintiff case was that the defendant was negligent in not diagnosing the illness at the right time. The supreme court noted that:
  1. Firstly, there should be a duty of care or doctor patient contract should be established.
  2. Secondly, there should be a breach of duty by act of commission or omission by the doctor.
  3. Thirdly, Damage or harm must be casual as a result.
  4. Fourthly, the damage or harm should be casually related to the act of commission or omission.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Sign Up For News Updates / Enquiries and Registrations

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Sign Up For News Updates/Enquiries and Registrations