Medindia On Mobile

About UsPortfolioPressCareersSitemapAdvertiseContact Us

Top of Form
Health
partner-pub-4864

news
FORID:10 Subscribe

ISO-8859-1 Follow us

Register | Sign In on Twitter

Become a
Fan of
Search
Medindia

Bottom of Form

Custom Search
HOME NEWS
Current Health News Popular News Topics Health News Central News Photo Gallery

Special Reports Health Press Releases News Archive A-Z Disease News
News by Alphabets
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
HEALTH A-Z
A-Z Health Topics Animation Acronyms Calculators Diet & Nutrition Drugs
Information Drug Toxicity First Aid
Glossary Health Videos Health Encyclopedia Lab Tests News Procedures Phobias
Quiz
HEALTH CENTRES
Child Health Teen Health Men's Health Women's Health Senior Health Sexual Health
Mental Health Vision Care
Alternative Medicine Consumers Diet & Nutrition Health Laws in India Health
Insurance Lifestyle & Wellness Medical Education Medical Humour
Medindia Specials Medical Tourism Movies with Medical Theme Professionals
Support Groups Travel & Health Yoga
HEALTH TOOLS
Health Calculators Animation Blood Tests Create Health Record Get Well Cards
Know your body Health Statistics Health Quotations Mnemonics
DIRECTORIES
Healthcare Directory Chemists Directory Doctors Directory Hospital Directory
Medical Education NGOs Pharmaceuticals Surgical Suppliers
SERVICES
Online Medical Consult Online Diet Consult Medical Jobs Submit Press Releases
Create Home Pages Free Medical Downloads Medical Electives Alumni Services

Medical Slides Post Grad Courses Indian Universities MCQ Bank

WEBSITES
View Categories Add Category Add Subcategory Add Website/ URL Create Your
Website Help

BUY ONLINE
Medical Books Buy Health Directories Buy College Database Buy Pincode Directory
Buy & Sell Advertise on Medindia
BLOGS
Diseases Health Insurance Medical Tourism Travel & Health Diet & Nutrition
Lifestyle & Wellness
COMMUNITY
Get Connected Join Community Support Groups Discussions
FORUM

Medindia » Consumer Health » Medico-Legal Cell » Landmark Case

 PA related LANDMARK CASE
to Medical
Profession RELATED CASES
Definitions The complainant alleged that her husband died due to
Consumer the complications arising after kidney biopsy. The
Disputes State Commission held that the complainant had
Redressal suppressed the crucial facts in her complaint. Besides
Agencies serious life threatening diseases, the deceased was
District- already suffering from tuberculosis and
Forum staphylococcus aureus septicaemia (a serious
State- infection of the blood by bacteria). These are very
Commission serious diseases with a very high mortality rate
especially when the heart, lung and brain get infected.
National-
Hence, the complainant had not come with clean
Commission
hands and thus disentitled herself to relief under this
jurisdiction of the C.P. Act. Complaint dismissed with
Rs. 1,500/- as costs (SUBH LATA v. CHRISTIAN
Preventive
MEDICAL COLLEGE (Punjab SCDRC O.C. No. 14 of 1994
Measures
decided on 15.6.1994; 1994 (2) CPR 691; 1995 (1) CPJ
Prevention at
365; 1995 CCJ 512
Personal
The complainant’s 18-year-old son was suffering from
Level
chronic renal failure and was advised renal
Prevention at transplantation. He was admitted in the hospital and
Practice dialysis was done for which a venous catheter was
Prevention by introduced in the right thigh and kept in situ (same
Professional position of the body) as he would require frequent
Indemnity dialysis. But due to lack of proper care like frequent
Prevention by dressing and medical attention, this site developed
People pus formation leading to A.V. Fistula, which resulted in
Support gangrene of the right leg. In order to save the life of
Groups the patient, amputation of the leg was necessary. The
General patient died after 20 days. The opposite did not
Guidelines appear in the State Commission. The case was
for Legal decided in favour of the complainant on the basis of
Defense the affidavits filed by the complainant and another
Technical experienced doctor who testified in favour of the
Defenses complainant. A compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with
Factual Rs. 1,000/- as costs to be paid by the opposite party
Defenses within 30 days from the receipt of this letter, failing
which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of
18% per annum till realization. SHIVAJI GENDEO
Do's and CHAVAN v. CHIEF DIRECTOR, WANLESS HOSPITAL &
Don'ts for Anr. (Maharashtra SCDRC Complaint No. 451 of 1993
3.12.1994 (3) CPJ 43)
 Doctors The complainant was operated for gallstones but
Do’s for subsequently he developed structure near the bulbous
Doctors urethra due to which he could enjoy sex and could not
Don'ts for pass urine easily. He ultimately had to be operated at
Doctors a Urological Hospital for relief and heavy amount had
Interesting to be spent due to negligent performance of his first
cases operation. The State Commission observed as under
Landmark and the complaint was dismissed. There is absolutely
case no evidence to establish that there was any
negligence on the art of the opponent in performing
Post your
the operation on July 30,1992 and that it was a result
views
of such negligence that second operation became
Do u need
necessary. First operation was on account of multiple
legal help?
gallstones whereas the second operation became
operation became necessary. First operation was on
account of small strictures near bulbous urethra.
Health
Connection between the two operations has not been
Guide
established. In other words, it is not proved that the
second operation became necessary on account of
Health Topics negligence in the performance of the first operation.
News There is no certificate of the doctor of the urological
Diseases hospital at Nadiad wherein it is alleged to have been
Procedures stated that the second operation became necessary
First Aid on account of the first operation on record. In the
Diet & absence of any expert evidence, we cannot hold the
Nutrition opponent who has stated that he had performed the
Drugs operation on the complainant carefully and that the
Information complainant had not complained of pain when he was
discharged from the hospital and thereafter. There is
Drug Toxicity
also some force in the opponent’s submissions that if
Lab Tests
the complainant was suffering from intense pain as
Animation alleged by him, he would not have waited for seven
Calculators months to consult Dr. Rajguru. There is nothing in the
Phobias documentary evidence placed on record, which would
Acronyms support the allegations made by the complainant. The
Glossary complaint dismissed without costs. JAYANTILAL
GOVINDALAL PARMAR v. MANAGING TRUSTEE & Ors.
(1997 (1) CPJ 295:1997 (2) CPR 9 (Gujarat SCDRC)
The complainant was admitted in a private hospital for
pain in the neck on the right shoulder. Investigations
reveled that he was a diabetic and had right
hydronephrosis with obstruction at right uretrovesical
junction. The complainant underwent surgery by
retroperitoneal approach. The affected portion of the
ureter was removed and uretric reimplantation was
done. During the postoperative period, the
complainant developed high fever and further
investigations showed that a stapler pin was seen in
the gastrointestinal tract. The complainant got
discharged against medical advice. The allegation was
that the pin was left there during the operation. The
surgeon stated that the surgical staplers are V or U
shaped and used in clusters in surgeries involving
large intestine. The stapler pin seen in the x-ray is not
a stapler pin. It resembles the stapler pins used un
food pockets. Evidently, this stapler pin should have
been swallowed. The State Commission held that
there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the
part of the hospital and dismissed the complaint
without costs. C.J. LAWRENCE v. APOLLO HOSPITALS
(Tamilnadu SCDRC O.P. No. 8/94 Decided on
05.08.1998).
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Top of Form

Highlights of the Supreme Court of India's judgment in

Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P.Shantha and Others
Structure of Consumer Forums / Commissions and
District Jurisdictions
Legal Avenues available to aggrieved patients
Consumer Protection Act,1986

Related Cases
Post your views | Do u need legal help?
Bottom of Form
 rediff.com

• News
• Business
• Movies
• Sports
• Get Ahead
Hi Guest
Sign In | Create a Rediffmail account
Top of Form

Search

rediff.com web
Bottom of Form

Free air tickets: Unfair trade practice?

May 22, 2008 12:49 IST

Save to
My Page

Ask
Users
Education in India / Career Guidance / Information Technology / UNFAIR
TRADE PRACTICE - GLOBAL ENTERPRISE INFOTECH SOLUTION

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE - GLOBAL ENTERPRISE INFOTECH SOLUTION

Author Message

Guest Post: #1

Unregistered
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE - GLOBAL ENTERPRISE INFOTECH SOLUTION

Global Enterprise Infotech Solution

Posts: N/A This Is Training Institute.
Group: N/A It Advertise In News Paper For Training Cum Recruitment Programme For
Joined: N/A Data Warehousing As Well As Bioinfomatic.
Status: Unknown They Assured 100% Job Guarantee.
But After Completion Of The Course They Deny Any Such Assurance.
Cheating Case Filed Against The Institute 2 Years Back In Andheri Midc
Police Station.almost 40 Student Has Complained Against The Said
Institute For Unfair Trade Practice.civil Suit File Against The Institute In
Consumer Court In Bandra. After 2 Years , Finally Judgment Came Out In
Favour Of Student.
Court Found The Institute Involved In Unfair Trade Practice And Asked The
Said Institute To Refund Course Fee As Well As Compensation Of
Rs.20000/-.
So All The Student Who Had Duped By The Institute Has Great Chance To
Recover There Money Through The Court,if You Want I Will Send The
Judgement Copy.

Best Of Luck

On December 9, three postgraduate students — Mayur Akole, Tahir

Farooqui and Amit Natekar — set a landmark. After a two-year struggle,
they won a case of cheating against Global Enterprise Infotech Solutions
(GEIS). Not only were they able to get back the money they paid for the
course, but they also got the owners to compensate them for the mental
harassment they were subjected to.

In 2004, these students, with support from 35 others from previous

batches of GEIS lodged a case of cheating against its central manager and
director, when the classes failed to provide recruitment in reputed
computer firms as promised.
 Though most of the students backed out, Akole Farooqui and Natekar filed
a court case in February 2005 and pursued it till the end.

The strategy

They contacted duped students from earlier batches to substantiate their

stance before filing the case against the manager. Two arrests were made,
but bail was subsequently obtained. The students then approached the
Bandra consumer court. They prepared a case based on the statements
taken by the police.

They approached the registrar, who helped them file a case.

The students won Rs 57,000 as compensation — Rs 20,000 for mental

harassment, Rs 2,000 for the expenses incurred for court proceedings and
Rs 35,000 for the course fees.

I THINK THIS IS ENOUGH FOR ALL YOU QUERIES.

12-20-2006 07:01 PM

GEIS Post: #2

Junior Member
RE: UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE - GLOBAL ENTERPRISE INFOTECH
SOLUTION

Hi,

Posts: 1 With reference to concerned link about Global Enterprise Infotech

Group: Registered Solutions,
Joined: Jan 2009
http://forum.education4india.com/showthr...p?tid=1339
Status: Offline
which is wrong information updated in website of google and we are
authorised institure and where we have proof on legally, so we are
Reputation:
requesting to concerns not to do such unethical work in future which
hammers company policy.

And we are requesting to Education india and google to please

delete concerned link from website.
This post was last modified: 02-14-2009 08:03 PM by admin.

01-07-2009 06:05 PM

admin Post: #3

Administrator
RE: UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE - GLOBAL ENTERPRISE INFOTECH
SOLUTION
 This is the forum which is open for public. People come here and write their
views and experience. If somebody is misusing this for defaming your
Posts: 1,257 institute then we will be happy to publish all the proofs and counter articles
Group: Administrators if given by you. We welcome your details and credentials.
Joined: Apr 2006
Status: Offline

Reputation:

10-28-
which langugae is in demand satty 3 2009
03:22 PM

09-19-
TNQ Infotech - Offshore Data Entry Company
job2me02 0 2009
Chennai, India.
07:27 PM

Contact Us | Education in India | Return to Top | Return to Content | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS
Syndication | Forum Managed by : MAAS InfoMedia

Supporting Sites : Exams in India | MBA News India | Online Degrees | Education
Institutes |

Powered By MyBB
Copyright © 2009 MyBB Group

5.0 Case Studies Related to Indian IPR Protection

Bangalore Aug10, 2003. Banashankari police arrested three software engineers for
illegally copying software from a company they were working for. The accused enginners,
who were working with the Ishoni Networks India Private Limited, had started a new
company called Ample Wave Communication Network in Koramangala. They had illegally
copied code of the company’s software and were using at their company, police said. Ishoni
Director Antonio Mario Alvares had lodged the complaint with Banashankari police. Police
have seized four computers, four CPUs, four keyboards, one server and one laptop from the
accused. (Source: DH News Service, Bangalore)

@Zinnov LLC 5 Intellectual property protection in India

New Delhi Aug28, 2002. Central Bureau of Investigation officials in New Delhi nabbed
Shekhar Verma, a former employee of Mumbai-based Geometric Software Solutions
Company and a computer engineer from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. It
turned out that Verma was accused of stealing $60 million worth of source code of a
software product of Geometric Software's US-based client, SolidWorks, and trying to sell
them to other companies for a fortune. The American firm has the exclusive rights over the
software. (Source Rediff.com)

Results of Nasscom Initiatives

Calcutta, 7 April 2000: The Enforcement Branch, Calcutta police with the assistance from
Nasscom and BSA, seized pirated software worth of Rs. 2.61 crore (US$ 6,08,000) from
companies while conducting raids in the city. 4 persons, including owners, partners and
senior level employees of the companies, were arrested for this offence. The police
recovered around 636 CDs, and 2 computers loaded with pirated software.

Hyderabad, March 2000: Hyderabad Police, with assistance from Nasscom and BSA,
seized pirated software worth of Rs. 75,16,400 (US$ 174,800) from 7 companies at a
conducted raid. 13 people, including senior level employees of the companies, were arrested
in this regard. The Police recovered around 293 CDs, 5 hard disks and 7 computers loaded
with pirated software. The estimated value of the pirated software was worth Rs.77 lakh.

Chennai, February 2000: Pirated software worth Rs.1.11 crore (US$ 253,200) was seized
by the Chennai police at a raid conducted at the premises of four outlets. A total of 6
employees were arrested which included the Managing Director of one outlet and
proprietors of each of the outlets.

New Delhi, 1st December 2000: Nasscom and BSA launched a new anti-piracy initiative -
The Reward Programme to make India's business community take note of the dangers of
software piracy. The reward offered, an amount up to Rs. 50,000 is for information leading
to successful legal action against companies using unlicensed software. The reward program
was aimed to encourage people to support the fight against piracy and to report software
piracy to the NASSCOM-BSA Anti-Piracy Software Hotline on 1600 334455 to help Nasscom
and the BSA remedy the illegal activity.

6.0 Conclusion
Protection of Intellectual Properties is a very critical element in the offshore business model.
There have been many cases where companies have lost their position in the market due to
the loss of intellectual property. Understanding the country’s IP Rights and following the best
practices described in this paper can drastically reduce the risk of loosing the company’s
intellectual property. Commitment to protect the intellectual property of a company should
be developed and nurtured at all levels of the organization.