Court cannot be oblivious of times when a warlike situation prevailed. It cannot also ignore or be blind to certain realities. In opinion of this Court, rather casual and superficial attention was paid to blood transfusion. These facts establish medical negligence. Bolam Test has gained widespread acceptance and application in Indian jurisprudence.

CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retired) has claimed Rs. 95,03,00,000/- [Rupees Ninety-Five Crores, Three Lakhs] under various heads. Although this Court has attempted to give tangible relief, it realizes, no amount of compensation in monetary terms can undo harm caused. CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retired) is entitled to compensation, calculated at Rs. 1,54,73,000/- [Rupees One Crore, Fifty-Four Lakhs, Seventy-Three Thousand].

– Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retired) v. Commanding Officer, [Civil Appeal No. 7175 of 2021].

_____

This is a classic case of human fallibility where doctors tried to do best as per their expertise and emerging situations. However, desired results could not be achieved. Looking at line of treatment in present matter, it cannot be said with certainty, it was a case of medical negligence.

– Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy, M.A. Biviji v. Sunita, [Civil Appeal No. 3975 of 2018] decided on 19.10.2023.

_____

‘Professionals’ could not be called ‘Businessmen’ or ‘Traders’, nor ‘Clients’ or ‘Patients’ be called ‘Consumers’. There is no good reason to assume, Legislature intended to include ‘Professions’ or ‘Professionals’ or ‘services’ provided by ‘Professionals’ within Consumer Protection Act, 1986, now Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651 deserves to be revisited and considered by a Larger Bench.

– Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi, [Civil Appeal No. 2646 of 2009] decided on 14.05.2024.

Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi, Civil Appeal No. 2646 of 2009 held, ‘Legal Profession’ is unique in nature and cannot be compared with other ‘Professions’. D.K. Gandhi also held, a ‘service’ hired or availed of an Advocate, is a ‘service’ under ‘a contract of personal service’ and therefore would fall within exclusionary part of ‘service’ contained in Section 2(42) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

– Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Supreme Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3-4 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 3883-3884 of 2024] decided on 19.03.2025.