Delhi State Commission awards 25 Lakh to victim of Medical Negligence
In Swapnil Mishra v. Pushpanjali Healthcare and Ors, the Delhi State Commission Consumer Court awarded damages of 25 Lakh to a woman who lost her baby, due to erroneous advice given by the hospital to plan for her first baby while she was simultaneously on heavy TB medication.
Swapnil Mishra checked into Pushpanjali Healthcare when she faced acute pain during her periods. She was subsequently diagnosed with ‘Endometrial Tuberculosis’ and put on heavy medication while simultaneously also being advised to plan for pregnancy by Pushpanjali Hospital. Medically, planning pregnancy while on such medication is acknowledged to be a huge risk.
She faced further complication, so she visited Fortis La Femme Centre for Women where the doctor declared that the baby was lost and she would have to undergo the Dilation & Curettage (“D&C”) procedure. After surgery in Fortis hospital, things took a turn for the worse, when the patient approached the same hospital after facing severe pain to be informed that there was still part of the dead foetus inside her.
Real trauma from negligent conduct was still forthcoming when the second surgery took place in the Fortis hospital. The doctor in charge scratched her uterus so extensively and damaged the wall of the endometrium such that it caused ‘Asherman Syndrome’, a syndrome capable of terminating chances of future pregnancy.
The court held that a doctor should not be allowed to misguide the patient just to earn some extra money or order costly tests that are not necessary. The doctors of the two hospitals as well as both hospitals were found to be deficient in service, and guilty of medical negligence. However, the court rejected the plea of taking penal action against the defendants.
Quick View
The recognition of rights of patients and awareness in case of medical negligence is growing in the country. Victims are free to seek redressal for damage caused, and judgments such as the instant one, confirm the success of such legal proceedings. However, there is need for further diffusion of information regarding rights among the more economically backward sections of society.
Moreover, the Indian laws place the ‘burden of proof’ on the plaintiff. Therefore, for alleging malpractice, a higher standard of evidence is necessary – making the law more medical professional – centric rather than patient-centric. It remains to be seen if the evolving jurisprudence turns the tide in favour of the unassuming victims rather than the skilled medical professionals.
Delhi HC holds PolicyBazaar liable for concealment of material facts in a suit for trademark infringement
The Delhi High Court, in the case of PoilcyBazaar Insurance Web Aggregator & Anr. V. Acko General Insurance Ltd. & Ors., issued an order imposing costs of Rs. 10 Lakhs for concealment of facts in a suit for trademark infringement under Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Court had earlier granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Acko Ltd. from using the trademark ‘PolicyBazaar’ and marks similar to that as AdWords through Google. Acko Ltd. then moved the court for vacation of this ad-interim injunction claiming that PolicyBazaar has concealed and distorted material facts, made misrepresentations and false statements in order to obtain it.
It was brought to the Court’s attention that Acko Ltd. has been using their registered and well-recognised trademark ‘ACKO’ for trade as well as promotion and advertisement and that the Plaintiff had been making references to this trademark as key AdWord through Google. Hence, it was submitted that PolicyBazaar clandestinely approached the Court concealing this fact as well as the fact that they had been trying to bid for the trademark ‘ACKO’ for a while now.
The Court, after examining the evidence for Google AdWords, concluded that PolicyBazaar had deliberately concealed material facts and was itself guilty of infringement. In light of this, the Court imposed a cost of 10 lakhs to be deposited to Prime Ministers Relief Fund and Delhi Legal-Aid Services Authority.
Quick View:
Google AdWords is paid advertising service where entities can bid on keywords used to match search engine results for internet users. Earlier, in the case of Consim Info Pvt. Ltd. V. Google India Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court had granted relief to Consim (Bharat Matrimony) in its allegations that Google was infringing and enabling other competitors to infringe its tademarks/keywords through this program.
The present judgment recognises the need to hold manufacturers liable for the infringing keywords they use causing undue advantage when the search engine directs the users to the competitor’s website. The judgement also upholds the principle of natural justice which requires a party to completely disclose all facts of the case when approaching the court for a remedy claiming any violation of rights.
Disclaimer: This post has been prepared for informational purposes only. The information/or observations contained in this post does not constitute legal advice and should not be acted upon in any specific situation without seeking proper legal advice from a practicing attorney.