- Home
- Medical news & Guidelines
- Anesthesiology
- Cardiology and CTVS
- Critical Care
- Dentistry
- Dermatology
- Diabetes and Endocrinology
- ENT
- Gastroenterology
- Medicine
- Nephrology
- Neurology
- Obstretics-Gynaecology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Orthopaedics
- Pediatrics-Neonatology
- Psychiatry
- Pulmonology
- Radiology
- Surgery
- Urology
- Laboratory Medicine
- Diet
- Nursing
- Paramedical
- Physiotherapy
- Health news
- Fact Check
- Bone Health Fact Check
- Brain Health Fact Check
- Cancer Related Fact Check
- Child Care Fact Check
- Dental and oral health fact check
- Diabetes and metabolic health fact check
- Diet and Nutrition Fact Check
- Eye and ENT Care Fact Check
- Fitness fact check
- Gut health fact check
- Heart health fact check
- Kidney health fact check
- Medical education fact check
- Men's health fact check
- Respiratory fact check
- Skin and hair care fact check
- Vaccine and Immunization fact check
- Women's health fact check
- AYUSH
- State News
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chandigarh
- Chattisgarh
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli
- Daman and Diu
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu & Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Lakshadweep
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Puducherry
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttar Pradesh
- Uttrakhand
- West Bengal
- Medical Education
- Industry
NCDRC exonerates neurologist, hospital from charges of medical negligence - Video
Overview
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently exonerated a Hyderbad-based hospital and neurologist from charges of medical negligence after reiterating the Supreme Court's directions that a much higher degree of gross negligence to hold a medical professional liable for any such act.
"The law of negligence in the medical profession was discussed in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 the ratio whereof requires a much higher degree of gross negligence in order to hold a medical professional to be liable for any such act... In the instant case, in view of the facts on record and as discussed herein above, I do not find this to be a case of gross medical negligence as alleged by the Complainant and therefore, I do not find any reason to hold the Opposite Party No.2 liable for any of his acts for any loss or damage to the Complainant. The Complaint is accordingly dismissed," observed the Apex Consumer Court.