Legal Advice for Common Man in India

The Madras High Court has recently observed that a live-in relationship between a married man and an unmarried woman was not one "in the nature of marriage" giving rights to the parties. The court added that in the absence of any codified law, the live-in partner could not seek any succession or inheritance of the property of the other part.

Bombay HC Permits 'Hamare Baarah' Film Release; Producers to Remove Particular Portions & Include Disclaimers. Ruling by Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla in response to petition alleging film's disrespect towards Islam and married Muslim women in India.

SC bench said the High Court in its order was swayed by the fact that there was indiscriminate firing but only three persons sustained injuries and two died

Two doctors from a private hospital in India were directed to pay Rs 25 lakh compensation to a woman by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for placing a mop pad inside her abdomen during surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. Additionally, the doctors were found to have removed the woman's o***y without proper consent. The incident dates back to 2016, and the patient experienced ongoing abdominal pain and vomiting post-surgery, leading to further investigations.

Starting June 1, 2024, several significant changes will take effect in India:

1) Drivers License Rules: Applicants will no longer need to pass a driving test at the Regional Transport Office (RTO). Instead, accredited driver training centers will conduct tests and issue certificates, which will be used to obtain a license from the RTO.
2) LPG Prices: There will be adjustments in LPG cylinder prices. This change aims to reflect the current international market rates.
3) Gold Hallmarking: New regulations will enforce mandatory hallmarking of gold jewelry and artifacts, ensuring better quality control.
4) Income Tax Filing: Updates to the income tax return (ITR) filing process are set to simplify compliance for taxpayers.

These updates are part of ongoing efforts to streamline administrative processes and ensure regulatory compliance across various sectors.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi directed a hospital and two doctors to pay compensation for negligence in treating a patient with Obstructive Hydrocephalus. The doctors allegedly delayed referring the patient to a neurosurgeon despite indications in CT scan reports. The patient's condition worsened, leading to his death. The hospital denied negligence, stating they provided correct treatment.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission absolved a gynaecologist of medical negligence charges for leaving a surgical mop inside a patient's body during a C-section. The Commission found lack of evidence to support the claim, noting the patient's history of previous surgeries. The case involved multiple investigations and surgeries due to complications, with inconclusive findings from medical boards. Despite a suspension, legal challenges ensued, ultimately resulting in the doctor being cleared of negligence allegations.

After a surgery called Septoplasty, the patient faced complications because the doctors and the hospital did not monitor the patient properly. This led to the patient turning blue (cyanosed) and losing consciousness, which unfortunately resulted in the patient's death. As a result, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala has ordered the hospital, the ENT surgeon, and the Anaesthesiologist to pay Rs 30 lakh as compensation for their negligence in monitoring the patient after the surgery.

A Delhi-based doctor was held responsible by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II for failing to inform a patient about the potential complications of a procedure for subacromial bursitis treatment. The doctor was directed to pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation to the patient who had to seek treatment at multiple hospitals due to pus discharge from her arm. The incident dates back to 2018 when the patient sought treatment from the doctor, who administered an injection and prescribed medications without adequately explaining the procedure's risks.

Non adjusting attitude of the respondent/wife who had no maturity to sort out the differences with the husband without his public humiliation due to which the appellant suffered mental cruelty. In the present case, the evidence on record makes it abundantly evident that the discord between the parties was not a mere normal wear and tear of marriage but when viewed comprehensively, were necessarily the acts of cruelty towards the appellant making their continuation in matrimonial relationship an act of perpetuation of cruelty.

The Supreme Court on Friday (April 19) imposed a cost of Rs.5 Lakhs on a wife's father for lodging a false Section 498A IPC case at different places against the husband to harass him by facing trial at different places.
Read more: t.ly/v3trr