Home / Latest News / Do you think decision to Cancel Licence of Max Hospital was a ‘harsh’ and ‘unfair’ move?

Do you think decision to Cancel Licence of Max Hospital was a ‘harsh’ and ‘unfair’ move?

December 10, 2017 Latest News Leave a comment 2,252 Views

December 10, 2017:

Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh claimed that the ruling is harsh.

Max Hospital has stated that,”Decision to cancel licence of the Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh was “harsh” and “unfair” and it will severely limit patients from accessing treatment”.

Max Healthcare authorities, in its statement which was issued hours after cancellation of licence by Delhi Govt. stated that they had not been given an adequate opportunity to respond.

They stated that,“We believe that even if there is an individual error of the judgement, holding hospital responsible is unfair and it will severely limit ability for the patients to access treatment. This will compound shortage of the hospital facilities in National Capital.”

Delhi Govt. has cancelled licence of Super Specialty Facility in North-West Delhi with the immediate effect for the alleged medical negligence including case of twins in which one of babies was found alive after being declared dead by the doctors.

Move has come after a three-member inquiry panel of Govt. submitted its final report to Health Minister Satyendar Jain, who termed incident as “not acceptable“.

According to Directorate General of the Health Services (DGHS) of Delhi Govt’s Heath Department, licence has been cancelled till the further orders.

Statement was issued by Hospital stated that,“We will explore all the options available to us. We stand firmly behind our commitment to patient care, clinical and service excellence to best of our capabilities”.

Related News @ Latest Laws –

8.12.2017 – Delhi Govt. cancels Max Hospital’s license over Medical Negligence

7.12.2017 – Max Profits by Max Hospital: CCI Report states Hospital made about 275% to 525% profit on sale of Disposable Syringes

Facebook Comments

Tags Criminal Negligence Hospital Max

Check Also

Read Full Text of SC Judges Letter to CJI Dipak Misra Here

January 12,2018: In a first, four senior judges from the Supreme Court held a press conference on Friday and came out against the Chief Justice of India, stating that events in the Supreme Court left them with no choice but ...

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. B.R.SAINI

15/12/2018 View PDF View Text

A. Constitution of India, 1950 Article 311(2) State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 68(2)(ii) - Government servants as well as others are governed by service rules and that whenever an Inquiry is conducted and a punishment is awarded, a delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of Report of the Inquiring Authority and an opportunity to submit his explanation - Absence of any rule providing for an opportunity to be given to a delinquent employee before imposition of a penalty cannot be taken advantage of by the employer - However, there is no requirement of a second show cause notice before imposition of a penalty. B. Constitution of India, 1950 Article 311(2) State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 68(2)(ii) - Major Penalty - Respondent given opportunity to respond to the Report of the Inquiring Authority and to the findings of the Disciplinary Authority - Respondent not entitled to any further notice before imposition of a penalty.

S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.

15/12/2018 View PDF View Text

HALAPPA Vs. MALIK SAB

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

A. Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 166 - 100% permanent disability - Compensation - Case of insurer that he visited to attend event - A demonstration of tractors was being held by tractor\'s company - Insured who is agriculturist, when approached tractor, driver unable to bring it to a halt as a result of which it turned turtle and collided with insured resulting in grievous injuries - Held, insurer failed to produce either file or report of Investigator in case - No independent witness produced by insurer to displace version of incident as deposed to by insured and eye witness - Insurer liable for compensation. B. Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 166 - 100% permanent disability - Compensation - Enhancement - Medical evidence shows that lower limbs of insurer paralyzed resulting in a loss of bladder and bowel control - Medical evidence establishes 100% disability of insurer - Insurer suffers from traumatic paraplegia and was hospitalized for 42 days - Insurer was 28 years of age when accident took place - Thus, monthly income of insurer L 4,000/- - Award for Future prospects and deduction for present expenses, enhanced from L 5,75,000/- to L 7,75,000/- - Award for future medical expenses enhanced from L 30,000/- to L 1,20,000/- regard to nature of disability - Therefore, compensation enhanced by L 2,70,000/- at the rate of 7% interest.

Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

RAJ KUMAR BHATIA Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Consumer Fora - Implementation of proper infrastructure - Committee appointed by present Court has filed its report - Committee has completed its task - Work of three member Committee appointed stands concluded with its report, a copy of which placed on record - Committee stands closed - ASG to assist present Court in formulating appropriate directions to ensure that proper infrastructure made available at all levels of consumer fora across country.

Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 102 - Indian Penal Code, Sections 406, 420 and 120B - Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 72A - Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, appeal dismissed.

Dipak Misra, CJI. and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

DINESH KUMAR J. @ DINESH J, Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Ordinary Civil Matter, appeal is allowed.

Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

HARPAL SINGH Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Constitution of India, Article 227 - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, Section 185 (1) - Specific Relief Act, Section 6, appeal is dismissed.

Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

RAJIVE RATURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Companies Act, 2013, Section 2 - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995.

A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

DISABLED RIGHT GROUP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act) 1995, Section 39 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 32 - Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

M.C.MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006.

Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

VIJENDRA KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. THE COMMISSIONER A.P. CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Andhra Pradesh Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1966, Section 77 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114(e). The appeal is thus, allowed in these terms. No costs.

N.V. Ramana and Amitava Roy, JJ.

15/12/2017 View PDF View Text

Latest CaseLaw

Latest laws Helping good people to do good things.

Saturday

13 January 2018

Do you think decision to Cancel Licence of Max Hospital was a ‘harsh’ and ‘unfair’ move?

Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh claimed that the ruling is harsh.

You May Also Like

Check Also

Read Full Text of SC Judges Letter to CJI Dipak Misra Here

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Do you think decision to Cancel Licence of Max Hospital was a ‘harsh’ and ‘unfair’ move?

Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh claimed that the ruling is harsh.

You May Also Like

HC expounds: Detaining a patient in Hospital over the unpaid bills is Illegal

SC terms CBI Judge Loya’s mysterious death as “Serious Issue”

HC states: Extramarital Affairs is one of the Highest reasons for Divorce, has devastating results

Check Also

Read Full Text of SC Judges Letter to CJI Dipak Misra Here

Leave a Reply Cancel reply