SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 1031

G.S.SINGHVI, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Minor Marghesh K. Parikh – Appellant
Versus
Mayur H. Mehta – Respondent


JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, `the National Commission') whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, `the Act') was allowed and the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (for short, `the State Commission') for payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the appellant with interest @ 9% per annum was set aside.

3. The appellant was admitted in the hospital of the respondent on 31.10.1994 with the complaint of loose motions. After some laboratory tests, the respondent put him on medication and also injected glucose saline through his right shoulder. This did not improve the condition of the appellant, who started vomiting and having loose motions frequently. On 3.11.1994, the respondent is said to have administered glucose saline through the left foot of the appellant. In the evening, the parents of the appellant noticed swelling in the toe of his left foot, which was turning black. This was brought to the notice of the respondent, who stopped the glucose. O

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top