<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (2) TMI 1257 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197020</link>
    <description>Medical negligence is made out only when a doctor&#039;s conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner exercising ordinary skill and care; a mere choice between acceptable treatment options, an error of judgment, or an unsuccessful result does not itself establish liability. Applying that standard, the Court noted that recognised medical opinion and expert material supported the anterior approach for adrenalectomy, and it found no basis to treat the surgery, post-operative management, second surgery, or follow-up care as deficient. The appellants therefore failed to prove breach of the requisite standard of care under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 14:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1257 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197020</link>
      <description>Medical negligence is made out only when a doctor&#039;s conduct falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner exercising ordinary skill and care; a mere choice between acceptable treatment options, an error of judgment, or an unsuccessful result does not itself establish liability. Applying that standard, the Court noted that recognised medical opinion and expert material supported the anterior approach for adrenalectomy, and it found no basis to treat the surgery, post-operative management, second surgery, or follow-up care as deficient. The appellants therefore failed to prove breach of the requisite standard of care under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>