<?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>2019 (1) TMI 1992 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304873</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the NCDRC&#039;s judgment and reinstating the finding of medical negligence by the SCDRC. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 15 lakhs with interest, and the hospital was held liable for the negligence, but not the Director of the hospital personally. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to established medical guidelines and the need for timely and adequate treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2022 22:05:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=694566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1992 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304873</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the NCDRC&#039;s judgment and reinstating the finding of medical negligence by the SCDRC. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 15 lakhs with interest, and the hospital was held liable for the negligence, but not the Director of the hospital personally. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to established medical guidelines and the need for timely and adequate treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>