Manish Mehrotra - Lawyer

Consumer Protection- Mediclaim in a case of ovarian cancer found fully justifiable. Wrong repudiation by Insurance Company. No concealment of material fact by patient. Supreme Court, Om Prakash Ahuja vs Reliance General Insurance. Decided on 4.7.23

Compassionate Appointment not a vested right. Bank of Baroda vs Baljit Singh Supreme Court. Decided on 21.6.23

Privileged to address all the learned members of the Uttar Pradesh Consumer Court on Medical Negligence law of India during a training programme at the Prestigious JTRI Lucknow today.

The Bombay High Court (decided on 22.7.22) holds in a case arising out of S 125 CrPc proceedings that a Son is liable in law to maintain the father. Jagannath Bhagnath Bedke v. Haribhau Jagannath Bedke.

My View:- Feel Sad that now Indian Values have to be enforced through the Courts !!!

In the backdrop of recent death of a practicing doctor by su***de in Rajasthan allegedly due to harassment by a patient's family, the Indian Medical Association Dwarka has moved the Supreme Court seeking directions for issuance of guidelines for protection of doctors who are regularly falling victim of physical assault at the slightest suspicion over treatment of the patients.

The PIL has also sought directions for evolving a mechanism to compensate the family and dependents of such deceased doctors who lost their lives to the cause of public service.

Further directions have been sought for issuance of comprehensive guidelines for establishment of digitally equipped medico-legal cell in all police stations across the country to handle the cases of medical negligence.

Case Title: Indian Medical Association Dwarka vs Union of India & Ors reports Live Law.

Housing Project:- Refund of the total principal amount directed; clear that the apartment was not complete in all respects nor was it in a habitable condition. Hon'ble Supreme Court M/S IREO Pvt. Ltd. Versus Aloke Anand decided on 22.1.22.

Today the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case has been pleased to hold that 'pharmaceutical companies' gifting freebies to doctors is prohibited by law and they cannot claim it as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

These freebies are technically not 'free' – the cost of supplying such freebies is usually factored into the drug, driving prices up, thus creating a perpetual publicly injurious cycle. The bench comprised of Hon'ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and S.Ravindra Bhat J. ( Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit - II )

High Court is not deprived to determine questions of fact, but it is true that exercise of jurisdiction is discretionary and discretion has to be exercised only on sound legal principles. Hon SC AIR 2020 SC 3969

Arbitration- A Counter Claim can be raised first time in pleadings before an Arbitral Tribunal.