Skip to main content

legal opinion- do doctor protect their liabilities

                         SHORT NOTE ON LEGAL OPINION

FACTS:

Mahesh, a patient of Dr. Abhisekh died during treatment due to heart attack. Family member of Mahesh have alleged medical negligence against the treating doctor & further has filed a case in consumer court seeking compensation of 50 Lakhs. Dr. Abhisekh is insured with United India Assurance Company for his Professional indemnity. Dr. Abhisekh want to better compromise the case and let the insurance company make the payment to the patient. But insurance company says that the payment to the patient relatives be made only after the court verdict goes against the doctor. 

ISSUE:

What Doctor should do to protect his liability. 

LEGAL ASPECTS:

National commission of India pronounce 2 contradictory orders. In one hand National Commission ordered that Insurance  companies cannot be a party in case of Medical Negligence by the Doctors or Hospitals. On the other hand, National Commission ordered that insurance companies are justified in denying compensation on the account of not being a party in medical Negligence cases. 

In the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Devendra Mohan Anand, patient died during medical treatment and relative of the deceased file a case of Medical Negligence against the Hospital & Doctors. In an appeal hospital mentioned that hospital and its doctors are insured under Medical Indemnity Insurance. Hospital ask the commission to make Insurance company a proper party in the case. The Commission stated that the medical negligence case filed against the Hospital and Doctors. Insurance company are not a proper party in such case. The hospital can sue Insurance company to claim damages under the medical indemnity Insurance when cause of action arises. The reason being delay in proceeding by making insurance companies a party in Medical Negligence case which violated the philosophy of speedy trial. 

IMPLICATION IN LAW:

In the case of Dr. Tarunjit Dutta Roy V. Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Ltd. (2010) a incidence of medical negligence occurred during the period of Medical Indemnity Insurance but Doctor failed to proof that Doctor inform the insurance company in writing about the situation. Delay in communication in claiming Insurance is a term mentioned in the insurance policy where company is not liable to pay the compensation. The courts are not allowed to give liberal interpretation of the term mentioned in the insurance policy. There terms are literally interpret and there is no scope of liberal interpretation. The Doctor shall inform Insurance company as soon as doctor received notice from the court. 

Doctor should make insurance company a proper party in the cases of Medical Negligence. In case of medical negligence the insured shall inform the insurance company as early as possible on receiving notice from court. By making insurance company a party in the case we need not to proof in the court that we had informed insurance company at the first instance. In the case of CC Choubal V. Pankaj Srivanstav the court held that the insurance company is a proper and necessary party in the cases of medical negligence. That makes easy for complainant to claim compensation for their losses. National Commission also mentioned that in an order that insurance companies are the proper party in the case of medical negligence while claiming compensation for the losses by the complainant. 

While making insurance companies party to  a medical negligence case, insurance companies cannot challenge such actions of the court on the ground of no medical negligence has been occurred, quantum of negligence is high or less, compensation are not cover in such cases, etc. mentioned in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Hardeep Singh (2002). The court also held that the agony of the consumer must be ended at some stage. The National Commission also states that the insurance companies are liable on taking such excuses mentioned related to medical negligence. 

CONCLUSION:

The courts and national commission should not pass such contradictory orders that we have seen above in the case study. These contradictory pronouncement of orders create chaos in the society. In case there are some specific cause of action arises the court and national commission should not disturb the previous ruling. In a Supreme Court Judgement, the court held that equal benches of courts cannot overrule the verdict of each other. In order to overrule verdicts the larger bench shall be appointed to deal with the case. 

OPINION:

In my opinion, Dr. Abhisekh shall inform the insurance company about the incident of medical negligence at first place. Then file an application to make insurance company a proper party in the medical negligence case on the account of Medical indemnity insurance. 



                                                                       
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more