NAJRUL SEIKHversusDR. SUMIT BANERJEE & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2877/2024
Decision Date: 22-02-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC184

 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments. 
						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.
						 NAJRUL SEIKH versus DR. SUMIT BANERJEE & ANR. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 10652024 INSC 184 VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the State Commission and the National Commission were justified in exonerating the respondents-doctors of all the charges of misconduct/medical negligence in performing the cataract surgery of complainant’s son leading to complete loss of vision in his Act, 1986 – s. 12 – Deficiency in service – Medical negligence – Complainant’s 13 year old son lost complete vision in his right eye following an allegedly negligent cataract surgery by the respondents-doctors – District forum allowed the claim for 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.NAJRUL SEIKHversusDR. SUMIT BANERJEE & ANR.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 10652024 INSC 184Coram : VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the State Commission and the National Commission were justified in exonerating the respondents-doctors of all the charges of misconduct/medical negligence in performing the cataract surgery of complainant’s son leading to complete loss of vision in his Act, 1986 – s. 12 – Deficiency in service – Medical negligence – Complainant’s 13 year old son lost complete vision in his right eye following an allegedly negligent cataract surgery by the respondents-doctors – District forum allowed the claim for