You may also like...
-
-
Full order W.P.(MD).No.10436 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD).14402 of 2020 N.ANAND VENKATESH,J. Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 2. A girl baby, who was just 14 days old, was under medical observation, since she was suffering from Congenital Anomalies at the fourth respondent Government Hospital. The parents of the toddler had gone out and when they returned to the ward where the child was given treatment, to their shock and dismay, it was found that a portion of the left hand thumb was severed and it was lying in the floor and the child was profusely bleeding due to severance of a portion of the left hand thumb. The parents found that a Staff Nurse at the Government Hospital while removing the paediatric venflon (cannula) from the left thumb, which was wrapped with the surgical tape, had cut a portion of the left hand thumb of the child. Immediately, it was informed to the Doctors and the Doctors had acted with alacrity and they conducted an emergency surgery by placing the cut portion in the left hand thumb and it was sutured. It is seen from records that the child is recuperating from this grievous injury.
by Sekar Reporter · Published June 23, 2021
-
Re-calling of Witness on the ground that the erstwhile counsel for the petitioner had omitted to put some important questions to the witnesses at the time of cross examination allowed Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 311 Re calling of Witness – Petitioner already cross examined the witnesses and after very long time the petition is filed to recall and for further cross examination of these witnesses only on the ground that the erstwhile counsel for the petitioner had omitted to put some important questions to the witnesses at the time of cross examination – Application Allowed – Conditions imposed.
by Sekar Reporter · Published June 14, 2020