VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Najrul Seikh – Appellant
Versus
Sumit Banerjee – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The Appellant before us, a BPL card holder, is the father of Master Irshad, a 13-year-old boy who lost complete vision in his right eye following an allegedly negligent cataract surgery undertaken by the Respondents. The complaint preferred by the Appellant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘DCDRC’) However, the order of the DCDRC was set aside by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘SCDRC’) and thereafter, the revision petition Disputes Redressal Commission (the ‘NCDRC’) was also dismissed vide order dated 09.06.2016, which is impugned before this Court.
Brief Facts:
4. The facts, to the extent relevant, are that on 14.11.2006, Master Irshad sustained an injury in his right eye. The next day, he was taken to Disha Eye Hospital and the examination report revealed that Irshad was suffering from traumatic cataract and required a minor surgery. Being unable to finance his son’s treatment at Disha Eye Hospital, the Appellant approached Respondent No.1, a doctor and partner at Megha Eye Centre i.e., Respondent No. 2 on 18.11.2006.
5.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.