STOCK MARKET BSE NSE

New probe into medical negligence case

The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday directed the State government to conduct a fresh inquiry into the death of a patient due to alleged medical negligence during the transplantation of her kidneys and pancreas on May 6, 2010.

Published: 18th September 2013 10:07 AM  |   Last Updated: 18th September 2013 10:07 AM   |  A+A-

The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday directed the State government to conduct a fresh inquiry into the death of a patient due to alleged medical negligence during the transplantation of her kidneys and pancreas on May 6, 2010. The inquiry would be based on a Lokayukta report about the case.

Seema Rai, the wife of Major Pankaj Rai, had been admitted to Fortis Hospital for a kidney transplant. Following Seema’s death, her husband lodged a complaint against the hospital with Karnataka Medical Council, alleging that the hospital had transplanted both her kidneys and pancreas simultaneously though it did not have a licence for pancreatic transplants. Rai approached the Lokayukta after the council gave a clean chit to Fortis Hospital. In its report in May 2011, The Lokayukta indicted the hospital, stating that it had no licence as required under the Human Organ Transplantation Act.

A division bench comprising Justice N Kumar and Justice V Suri Appa Rao passed the order on an appeal filed by Fortis Hospital.

The bench directed both complainant Pankaj Rai and Fortis Hospital to submit all documents in their possession to the inquiry committee before October 3.

HC upholds KSHRC appointments

The HC on Tuesday upheld the appointment of retired IAS officer Meera Saxena and retired district judge Chandrashekar Gurubasappa Hungund as members to the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (KSHRC), rejecting a petition that claimed that the body did not have representation from the SC/ST.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice B V Nagarathna upheld the appointments and dismissed an appeal filed by M Kumbaiah.

The petitioner submitted that he hailed from the SC community and was a practising advocate at the HC.

He contended that since the establishment of the KSHRC, no persons from the SC/ST communities were appointed as its members.

The division bench upheld a single judge bench order of June 12 on the ground that it was not mandatory to give reservation in the KSHRC as there was no such provision in the State Human Rights Act.



Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp