VASANTHA P. NAIR v. SMT. VP NAIR 1991
ANALYSING THE CONCEPT OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE UNDER THE AMBIT OF 1986 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT(COPRA)
INTRODUCTION
Health occupation is considered as the most caring and helpful one and the oldest professions. The state must protect the basic right of “Right to Life” which is surefire by Article 21[1] of the Constitution. Providing citizens with the best medical service is another duty of the state. The Consumer Protection Act, 1989[2] (COPRA) was enacted to provide customers/patients with the best possible treatment with the relationship of trust. The act defines ‘consumer’ and ‘service’ briefly. Marginally the act has been amended in 1991, later in 1993 and 2001 having the point of view to make it more operative and efficient with the aim of providing justice at the consumers' doorstep
[3]. Consumer Protection does not only protect the consumer at market place but it also protects when the consumer goes for medical treatment. Section 2(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act[4] defines the term “consumer”. This section briefly explains the complaint and under what circumstances it can be filed. For this, a person must satisfy the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under section 2 of the COPRA,1986[5].
The Act of 1986, sec. 2(b) and 12[6], permits the following to file a complaint:
l A consumer.
l Any state government or the central government.
l One or more than one consumer, where the interest of various consumers having the same interest.
l “Consumer associations enumerated under any law for specified time”.
Also, beneficiaries of services and goods are included under the ambit of people who can file a complaint seeking redressal.
Further, the right to file a complaint can be understood from the case of “Vasantha P. Nair vs. Smt. VP Nair, 1991[7]. The case stated:
“The Act does not expressly include the legal representative of a deceased consumer in its scope. But, by the operation of law, the legal representatives get clothed with the rights, status, and personality of the deceased. Thus, the expression consumer would include a legal representative of the deceased consumer and he can exercise his right to enforce the cause of action which has devolved on him”[8]
In simple words, It says that the activity of providing medical service in return for payment is undertaken by medical practitioners and this service comes under the ambit of ‘medical service’. In case of any medical mishap. The patient has the right to move to the consumer court who has jurisdiction.
According to the said act, medical service applies to every situation where there is a consideration between the doctor and patient. The objection raised in the case was that the service which was rendered by the opposite party was “personal service”. The viewpoint of the state commission was that ‘like the services of a lawyer, the services which are rendered by a hospital and its doctors are professional and it would be incorrect, crude and infelicitous to call such a high and sophisticated class professional service as ‘personal service’. The case also stated that under COPRA, legal representatives of the deceased are termed as “consumers” and thus they have the right to file a complaint in the concerned consumer forum.
The two cases- Vasantha P Nair vs. Smt. VP Nair[9] and the case of “Vinitha Ashok vs. Lakshmi hospital and others”[10], it was held by the doctors that such cases with such claims cannot be tried under the COPRA Act. It was said that the services which were rendered were not commercial services whereas they were “private services”[11] and therefore they are not covered under COPRA. Lastly, it was stated that, as the patients were not consumers, therefore, they cannot put the blame on medical negligence.
In the cases of Medical service, the patient is not considered to be in a position or state to exercise any control over the doctors. It was also said that such are the cases of principal- agent relationship where the patient is the principal and doctor is the agent and the principal authorize the agent to act on his behalf for the essence of performance of something of which the principal has no knowledge[12]. Whereas on the other part ‘ service’ includes ‘contract of service’ which indicates the master-servant relation where the master indicates the servant for the performance of a certain act in a specified manner. Therefore, the technical services or the professional services like those of a Lawyer, surgeon, engineering contractors, CA, etc. are covered under the purview of COPRA.[13]
The National commission keeping the verdict of Kerala State Commission has held a patient is a ‘consumer’ and that medical assistance is a ‘service’ and therefore in case of any mishap, deficiency, or negligence in the process of providing medical service, the jurisdiction lies with the consumer courts. It was also observed that professional or medical service is not personal service and is an exception to the application of the Consumer Protection Act. As defined by Sec. 2(1)(d) of 1986 Act[14], it was held that the medical profession falls under the purview of ‘service’
The main paper will be analyzing ‘The Consumer Protection Act,1986 and medical negligence’. The researcher shall be explaining terms such as consumer, service, negligence, etc. All of the above shall be done via the help of various case laws for providing a better understanding of the concept.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Following are the objectives of having research on the case of Vasantha P. Nair v. Smt. VP Nair 1991:
- To understand Medical Negligence and COPRA.
- To understand how medical associations and medical councils view medical practice under COPRA.
- Whether private service by medical practitioner a sort of profitable service.
- Whether a consumer can seek justice under the consumer forum in case of treatment done negligently and malpractice.
- To understand the issues and apprehensions that took place in different cases in association with the consumers' forum.
- To understand whether COPRA is effective in providing redress in its objectives.
- To understand the implications of bringing the medical profession under COPRA.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Following are the questions which shall be answered through the research:
1. What are the implications of bringing medical negligence under CPA?
2. What are the facts and circumstances of the case and how did the court interpret it in association with the consumer forum?
3. Is private service provided by medical practitioners a type of commercial service?
4. How are medical practices under COPRA viewed by medical councils and medical associations?
5. In case of malpractice and negligence, from where does the consumer seek redressal?
6. Is COPRA effective in providing redress in its objectives?
LITERATURE REVIEW
All of the following literature that has been referred to for understanding the topic of research, helps the researcher in understanding the basic structure of the case law that deals with medical negligence and the COPRA.
- An article named “Consumer Protection Act and hospital Industry” by Pragati Ghosh[15] differentiates between a consumer and service and outlines the basic elements of CPA. It also talks about the negligent attitude of hospitals towards their consumers.
- “Applicability of Medical practitioners under COPRA, 1986” by Kadu S. Sandeep[16] took the help of many case laws including the Vasantha P. Nair case to explain Medical Negligence and CPA.
- Gurjeet Singh “CPA 1986 and Medical Professions in India: Conflicts and Controversies”[17]his work covers medical negligence, consumer rights, and many case laws, etc. in a very broad sense which helped the researcher in understanding the concepts very clearly.
- Satyavrat’s “Consumer Protection Act”[18] in a very convenient manner` describes what CPA is. Various definitions of the two-amendment act are defined, various case laws like Vasantha P. Nair v. Smt. VP. Nair etc. are defined. It also describes the redressal forum of CPA.
- Dr. Jagdish Singh “Consumer Protection act and Medical Practitioners”[19] talks about the doctor-patient relationship, various issues that come before medical practitioners, etc. It lays down many Indian case laws through which the researcher understood the basic concepts.
- Rebecca Furtado “All you need to know about Consumer Protection Act laws in India”[20] it talks about CPA from the point of view of the Indian Constitution. It also talks about the redressal forum and its jurisdiction.
- Maujhurisahoo “Judicial Interpretation of Medical Negligence under Consumer protection”[21] this article very conveniently explains the test for determining negligence in service by taking the assistance of various case laws.
CHAPTERIZATION
1. Chapter-1 “Understanding professional negligence” deals with a skilled group of people who performs tasks based on their skill and knowledge. It also talks about under what circumstances a professional can be held liable. This chapter also introduces the medical negligence and consumer protection act.
2. Chapter-2 “Consumer of medical service under COPRA 1986” with the assistance of a few case laws tries to describe how COPRA started and what all are its components. It also tried to explain the term ‘consumer’ and ‘service’ under this chapter and whether they come under COPRA or not.
3. Chapter-3 “when can a patient seek redressal” this chapter lists down the criterion under which the consumer/patient has the right to seek redressal from the consumer forum. The patient must hire or agree or avail of the services. The services must be provided by or agreed to be provided by a medical practitioner. There must be some consideration agreed or availed of between patient and doctor etc are mentioned. It also talks about the Praveen Kumar Mukherjee case.
4. Chapter-4 “Duties and liabilities of a doctor” this chapter lays down the rights, duties, and liabilities of a doctor while treating a patient. exercise a reasonable degree of care, reasonableness, and skill while treating a patient is the most basic duty of a doctor.
5. Chapter-5 “types of liabilities” this part divides the heads under which the doctors can be held liable. It describes criminal liability, liability for medical misconduct, and when a hospital can be held vicariously liable.
6. Chapter-6 “Status of government and private hospitals under COPRA” this chapter of the paper describes briefly that what when and how a patient is treated in hospitals and when can he/she redress themselves under the consumer forum. It talks about the difference of consideration between both types of hospitals.
CHAPTER-1
UNDERSTANDING PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE.
While talking about Negligence, there is a category of people who are included in the skilled group of people. The group consists of Lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. tasks that require the skill of such persons can be possessed by him alone who carries with him such skills.
Based on 1-2 findings, such a professional can be made liable for his/her negligent act or behavior.
Ø If the professional professes to have such skill but he does not profess any such special skill.
Ø The professional did not perform his possessed skill with reasonable competence.
Both the above-mentioned must be proved to deprive any reasonable doubt.
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
CPA, 1986 has been an important milestone in our country for providing consumers a better place to rely on. The act was enacted to provide consumers protection from getting exploited and provide them aid and justice resulting from human activities. An example of this is the negligence of medical practitioners or those who provide medical services. CPA was enacted keeping in mind that consumers get the best of goods and services and their interest is not exploited. Any wrongful act happens with anyone, they can approach consumer courts and get the best possible remedy. CPA is compensatory in nature.[22]
Medical Negligence means when any service provided by a medical practitioner is negligent in a manner that care or the treatment provided by him/her falls below the acceptable standard in the area of medical practitioners and the end result of such an act is injury or even death of the patient[23].
Following are the four essentials of Medical Negligence:
a) Duty of Care: Every medical practitioner holds a duty of care towards their patient where ever the patients render the treatment.
b) Breach of duty to care: Due to the Negligent behavior of the doctor, the patient has to suffer any injury because of a low standard of providing medical care.
c) Breach of duty causing injury: Because of the low standard of medical care and treatment the patient has to suffer some sort of injury. It is called a breach of duty causing injury.
In the introduction of the paper, we already understood that under CPA consumer is the term used for patient and service is the term used for treatment provided.
Due to medical practitioners, there is the various situation which leads to medical negligence. Inaccurate surgery, deferred diagnosis, incorrect diagnosis, etc. are a few examples. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Jain vs. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital and
Ors.[24] Observed that while testing negligence with keeping a doctor in a viewpoint that he/she has been qualified with competence but fails in having expert skill then it shall be appropriate that he must act and exercise like an ordinary man in such scenario. This was observed for the benefit of society at large, to prevent medical practitioners from thinking about their safety rather than the safety of the patient.
CHAPTER-2
CONSUMER OF MEDICAL SERVICE UNDER COPRA,1986
Earlier, there was no such forum for redressing the grievances of those who were aggrieved by Medical Negligence. In 1964, The Indian Medical council act, 1956 was amended and the council stated that the comportment of those could be specified, whose destructions could constitute delinquency. Another is that the council was available at headquarters itself therefore, accessibility of majority parties is tough. It also said that the council does not hold the power to compensate the affected person but there are provisions in criminal and civil law compensating and providing relief to the affected party. The stress of criminal law was on the death of a patient that was caused due to negligence, but anything lesser than death was considered as either grievous hurt or simple hurt. Criminal negligence is a matter of degree any precise definition of it is incapable.[25]
The courts being cautious does not hold skilled physicians liable for criminal negligence resulting in the death of a patient, being the result of error of judgment, application of remedies, and selection of remedies.[26]
Deciding the court’s jurisdiction and awarding damages suitable to the aggrieved party, does not show any record of dispute. There have been records of civil courts providing the patients affected by medical negligence the most suitable damages.[27]
NCDRC or “The National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission” sustained the Kerala state Commission decision that said ‘If a patient is under any medical practitioner for treatment, he is regarded as ‘consumer’ and the treatment provided by the doctor is ‘service’ and therefore, any mishap that takes place in performing medical service, the jurisdiction shall lie with consumer courts. To constitute an exception to COPRA’s application, it was further observed that medical services do not come under the ambit of ‘Personal Services’[28]
On 21st April 1992, NCDRC, President, Justice V Bala Krishna Eradi, delivered the judgment of Cosmopolitan Hospital vs. Vasantha Nair[29] stated that under section 2(1)(o) of COPRA, providing any medical treatment provided by the hospital or its staff in return for money falls under the ambit of ‘expressed service’ and in case of any dearth while providing service, the patient can seek remedies under the consumer court having authority. This can be done via filing a complaint.
CHAPTER-3
RIGHT OF PATIENT TO SEEK REDRESSAL.
Following are the circumstances under which the patient has the right to be redressed:
1. Patient must hire or agree or avail of the services.
2. The services must be provided by or agreed to be provided by a medical practitioner.
3. There must be some consideration agreed or availed of between patient and doctor.
4. Services provided by the doctor must suffer from any sort of malpractice or deficiency.
5. The services have not been provided as personal service or on humanitarian grounds as chargeless.[30]
In short, a patient who gives consideration for his treatment or promises to do so can seek redressal under the consumer court. Indian Medical Association vs. VP Shantha & others[31] is a Supreme Court judgment in which the above-mentioned was settled. The HC of Madras pronounced its judgment that anyone undergoing treatment in a private or government hospital is a consumer and can be redressed by the ‘consumer forum’.
Supreme Court’s judgment stated:
1. Section 2(1)(o) of COPRA says “service provided by the doctor to its patient except where service is ‘personal service’ or ‘chargeless’ in context of treatment, and consultation comes under the definition of service”.
2. The medical practitioners must comply with the disciplinal conduct of ‘the Medical council of India’ but this does not conclude that they will be exempted from the services provided under the ambit of COPRA.
3. Services undertook by medical practitioners come in the ambit of the exclusionary clause of COPRA wherein it comes under a contract of personal service.
4. As defined by the act, chargeless services rendered to anyone cannot be termed as ‘service’.
5. If the expense has been boned by an insurance company or by one’s employer under service conditions, even then the hospital cannot claim it to be free service.[32]
QUALITY HEALTHCARE IS THE PATIENT’S RIGHT.
In Pravat Kumar Mukherjee vs. Ruby General Hospital & Ors[33] an emergency case beyond any doubt was admitted to the hospital. He was admitted by a passer-by and no guardian was present. The doctors stopped his treatment stating that there is no consent for paying the treatment expenses. The condition of the patient was such that he required the assistance of some other hospital but the medical practitioners of the ruby hospital did not take up this initiative. Such acts led to the death of a young patient. It was stated that being a passer-by, the person did not have Rs. 15000 to be paid in the hospital. But being a professional, doctors must provide treatment on humanitarian grounds. They must know their duty and would have begun with his treatment. Also, it is understood that the service of the doctor has been hired and the hospital would have been given back the required sum on a future date.
CHAPTER-4
RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACCOUNTABILITIES OF A DOCTOR
Medical Practitioner holds the duty to use their skillful knowledge and reasonableness while treating any patient. If such a duty is breached, the doctor is held liable for ‘negligence’ but he is not liable for it if he keeps in compliance with his duty and proper reasonable duty of the medical practitioner who is skillful in such art. The skills of the medical profession differ from doctor to doctor. There might be more than one way of treating the same disease. Till the time, the doctor treats his patient with a due amount of care and skill and acceptably, he will not be held liable for negligence. This is acceptable even in permanent ailment or even in the demise of the patient.
Following are a few duties that a doctor must compliance with:
1. exercise a reasonable degree of care, reasonableness, and skill while treating a patient.
2. Doctor must undertake reasonable in deciding whether to take up the case and how to administer the patient.
3. The doctor must visit his patient whenever required and not become negligent while treating.
4. Must study the symptoms of a patient thoroughly and only then begin with treatment.
5. The family of the patient must be informed properly about his health and illness.
6. The authorities must be informed about communicable diseases.
7. Precautions and proper administration must be done before using injection and medicines.
Medical Practitioners has the authority to decide whether they want to take up the case or not and also has the right to decide what treatment type he wants to go for. Alternatively, the doctor must stabilize a patient in critical condition.[34]
Supreme Court in ‘Parmanand Katara v. Union of India[35] declared that doctors of both governments, as well as private hospitals, carry a professional duty to provide his skillful knowledge and provide his service to save a life. To make every doctor aware of his position, the court also stated that decisions must be given publicly. Section 134 of MVA 1988 was added after this verdict of Supreme Court.
CHAPTER-5
TYPES OF LIABILITIES
The doctor is exposed to both civil and criminal liability in case he is negligent while doing his duty. It can arise under the ‘IPC,1860’ ‘ICA,1872’ or under the ‘Indian Medical council, 1956’.
LIABILITY OF MEDICAL MISCONDUCT
The cases of medical misconduct are dealt with under the state medical councils and the Indian Medical council act,1956. They hold to authority to take necessary action against anyone who performs unacceptable medical conduct.
Under section 20A, the council holds the virtue of the power and drafted some regulations in compliance with the medical profession related to ethics and conduct of registered doctors.
A. Medical Ethics-code
B. Physicians’ duty towards patient
C. Physicians’ duty in consultation
D. Physicians’ duty towards one another
E. Physicians’ duty towards the paramedical profession and public
F. Misconduct
G. Unethical Conduct
H. Disciplinary and punishment
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
A doctor is held responsible for criminal liability when the conduct of the practitioner was rash and negligent which is unswervingly or meanderingly the reason for the patient’s demise.
Section 304A of IPC states “Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”.
Recently, in Dr. Suresh Gupta vs. Government of NCT, the Supreme Court held that to put charge of ‘medical negligence’ on any surgeon or doctor, the charges must so high that they are capable of being described as ‘recklessness’ or ‘gross negligence.
Medical services exempted from COPRA:
1. In the case of a master-servant relationship between the patient and doctor, the same would not come under the ambit of service under COPRA.
2. If at a hospital, whether governmental or non-governmental, the hospital does not collect any fee from any patient. Such a case does not come under COPRA.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF HOSPITAL
All the nursing homes and doctors are liable equally for any negligent act or misconduct of doctors and paramedical staff working under their authority. In such cases, damages can be claimed either from the hospital on the grounds of ‘vicarious liability
In one of the Judgments while describing hospitals liability the court held, “whenever a hospital admits a patient for treatment then they must provide him best treatment with skillful knowledge and reasonable care to cure the ailment”. Even if the staff of the hospital is negligent while treating the patient, they are equally liable for it as anyone else.
CHAPTER-6
STATUS OF GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE HOSPITALS UNDER COPRA
If we talk about settling the law, under the consumer forum of COPRA, government-run hospitals cannot file a suit. This is so because the service rendered by govt. hospitals do not have considered and therefore are chargeless. Just because the patient pays tax, he cannot prerogative of arising medical charges in the hospital. Patients admitted to government hospitals are not treated entirely free of cost. There are expenses food being offered to patients, medicines, and beds. Even surgeries not are done without charging anything from a patient. Regular check-ups can be concluded as a chargeless treatment. All the patients who hire hospitals service without consideration are not covered under the ambit of COPRA.
In “Paramjit Kaur v. the State of Punjab”[36], a woman was admitted to Punjab government hospital as she was about to give birth. She was treated without any cost. The woman gave birth to a girl child but later the woman filed a suit against doctors as the hospital claimed as compensation Rs. 2,00,000. The woman filed this suit on the ground that the hospital was negligent in treating her. Subsequently, the suit was dismissed as the services provided were chargeless.
Similar is the case of “Additional Director, CGHS, Pune vs. Dr. R.L. Bhutani” A retired government servant used to pay Rs. 9 per month to CGHS. The beneficiary of the same was himself and his family. Due to some illness of his wife, she was admitted and treated in a hospital but the result was that she got paralytic. The government servant asked the hospital to reimburse the amount paid for treatment. The National Commission stated that “the services provided by the nursing home were free of charge and therefore, the complainant does not come under the ambit of COPRA section 2(1)(d)”.
It is just a staple of knowledge that when a patient gets himself admitted to a government hospital the treatment is done chargeless but when he has to go under some laboratory test or X-rays etc. does is done in some private clinic or lab for which the patient has to pay himself. As also mentioned, -above beds, medicines, etc. are not free of cost so conclusively the treatment which is said to be free of cost is not free.
PRIVATE TREATMENT UNDER COPRA
All private hospitals, nursing homes, etc. come under the ambit of COPRA. This is so because when a patient gets admitted to the Pvt. The hospital considers the services provided to him and the services are not free of any charge. The payment is either paid or partly paid or is promised to be paid in the future course of time. Therefore, in case of any negligence, mishap, or deficiency a patient can approach the consumer forum for redressal. The service can be understood from section 2 of COPRA. All the facilities given with consideration comes under COPRA and all services which are free of cost are exempted from COPRA.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
COPRA came into force in 1989 and since then it has been very helpful to consumers of goods and services. The consumers who are covered under the ambit of COPRA can seek redressal in a very just, speedy and economical manner. Under this act, the services of medical practitioners are also covered in a very broad sense. People nowadays are much confident on consumer forum that in case of any deficiency occurs while being treated by ay medical practitioner they have to be redressed in a very economical manner. Because of the existence of this law, even doctors have become so cautious while treating any patient. The relation between a patient and doctor is one based on confidence and trust. The doctor must be very much clear while taking up the case and even if a patient without any Gaudian is admitted by some unknown person must be treated at least on humanitarian grounds. It is very much obvious that if the hospital provides its service to such a person, then the consideration will be given on a future date.
It is very difficult to prove whether the doctor was negligent or not while treating the patient and it has been said that there is a very thin line between liable and not liable. The reputation of the doctor, as well as the hospital, can be harmed if the doctor is charged for negligence whereas he was not. Therefore, there must be proper laws and principles which determine this fact, and if a doctor is liable for negligence the damages and punishment must be severe because being treated or operated is something about a person's life that is indeed very crucial.
REFERENCES
1. Avtar Singh, “Consumer protection laws”, edition 4(2000)
2. KS Reddy, “Medical profession and ethics”, 28th edition pp. 49-50
3. Jagdish, Vishwa, “Medical negligence and its compensation” edition 2nd
4. Sonali Chalakh, “Role of CPA in medical service”, ISSN: 2320-5091
5. Hari S. Nayar, “Laws and policy of consumer protection”
6. K. Ganesh, “Doctor-patient relation: changed perspective and medical litigation” (2009)
7. D.S Tiwari, “Criminal liability of doctors into medical negligence”, pp. 405-417
AUTHOR DETAILS:
NAME- SIMRAN SHADIJA
COURSE- B.A-L.L.B
SEMESTER- 2nd
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL DEEMED UNIVERSITY
FOOTNOTE
[1] INDIAN CONST. art. 21. [2] The Consumer Protection Act, 1989, No. 68, Act of Parliament, 1986. [3] Dayanad Shetty, “consumer and Service defined under COPRA, 1986” [4] The Consumer Protection Act, 1989, § 2 No. 68, Act of Parliament, 1986. [5] The Consumer Protection Act, 1989, § 2 No. 68, Act of Parliament, 1986. [6] The Consumer Protection Act, 1989, § 2 & 12 No. 68, Act of Parliament, 1986. [7] Vasantha P. Nair vs. Smt. VP Nair, 1991, 1 CPJ 302 [8] 1992 CPJ NC 302 [9] Vasantha P. Nair vs. Smt. VP Nair, 1991, 1 CPJ 302 [10] (2001) 8 SCC 731 [11]M K Balachandran, “Medical Profession and Consumer Protection” [12] Desai, Shreyas, “Laws of consumer protection in India”, Unique Law Publishers, (2006) [13] Manjhuri Shahoo, “Courts interpretation of Medical Negligence Under Consumer Protection” (2012) [14] The Consumer Protection Act, 1989, § 2 No. 68, Act of Parliament, 1986.
[15] Pragati Ghosh, “Consumer Protection Act and hospital Industry” [16] Kadu S. Sandeep, “Applicability of Medical practitioners under COPRA, 1986” Jan - March 2009; Vol. 2 No.1 [17] Gurjeet Singh“CPA 1986 and Medical Professions in India: Conflicts and Controversies” Vol. 37, No. 3 (July-September 1995), pp. 324-363 [18] Satyavrat’s “Consumer Protection Act” [19] Dr. Jagdish Singh “Consumer Protection act and Medical Practitioners” [20] Rebecca Furtado “All you need to know about Consumer Protection Act laws in India” September 13 (2016) [21] Maujhurisahoo “Judicial Interpretation of Medical Negligence under Consumer protection” [22] Dr. Barowala, “Commentary on the Consumer Protection Act”.pg-236-237. [23]KS Murt, “Medical negligence and the law” Vol IV July (2007). [24] AIR 2019SC1143 [25] Shreya desai, “Consumer Protection Law in India”(2006) [26] Dr. Barowala,“Commentary on the Consumer Protection Act” pg-236-237. [27] Ramsay, Iain, Consumer Law and Policy, 3rd Edition, Hart Publishers [28] KS Reddy, “Medical laws and ethics” (2009) pp. 49-50 [29]Cosmopolitan Hospital and anr. v. Vasantha P. Nair (1992) CPJ 302 NC [30] Ibid 2 pg. 238-239 [31] Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha & others, AIR1996 S.C.550 [32] Pradeep S Mehta, “How to Survive as A Consumer” pp 35 [33] Pravat Kumar Mukherjee vs. Ruby General Hospital & Ors, 2005(3) CPR 95 Pgs.- 109& 119 (DB) (NC) [34] Manjhuri Shahoo, “Courts interpretation of Medical Negligence Under Consumer Protection” (2012) [35] Pandit Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India, Supreme Court, 1989 [36] Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab, II(1997) C.P.J.394
Comments