Low Graphics Site
White bar
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

July 16, 2003 Wednesday Jumadi-ul-Awwal 15, 1424

Click to learn more...
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
.




LHC directs speedy trial of damages suit



By Our Staff Reporter


RAWALPINDI, July 15: The Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench on Tuesday directed a local civil court to decide within six months a Rs50 million medical negligence damages suit filed against a lady doctor of Cantonment General Hospital (CGH) and Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi.

Justice M Javaid Buttar of the LHC Rawalpindi bench issued these directions on a writ petition filed with the court under Article 199 of the Constitution for expeditious trial of the case lingering in the court for the last one and a half year.

The suit was filed by Lal Zamir, the husband of Riaz Bibi, in July 2001 who allegedly died of negligence of the lady surgeon at CGH.

Batish Mahmood Tipu and Nadir Altaf, the counsel for the petitioner, told the court that the witness of the plaintiff had still not been recorded for recovery of damages and compensation.

The damages suit was filed on the grounds that Riaz Bibi died due to sheer incompetence, medical malpractice and extreme carelessness of the respondents. Riaz Bibi had a caesarean section at the hospital on June 2, 2001. During the operation, the lady surgeon allegedly forgot to remove a sponge from the abdomen of the victim that caused a severe infection. Later her condition deteriorated but the doctor allegedly handled the situation carelessly.

In the petition, the petitioner stated that the act of respondents was unethical and his wife suffered bodily injury as a result of criminal and culpable negligence of the medical practitioner.






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2005