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

VITHAL RAO, SUSHEELA CHELUVARAJU
P. M. ASHWIN – Appellant
Versus
MANIPAL HOSPITAL, BANGALORE – Respondent


ORDER

Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President — In this complaint, under Section 17 r/w Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainants have sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- from the opposite parties.

Complainant No. 1 is a minor under the guardianship of complainants 2 and 3-parents. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the Managing Director and Medical Director respectively of M/S. Manipal Hospital, Bangalore; opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are a Paediatric Surgeon an Anaesthesiologist at Manipal Hospital, Bangaloe. Pending enquiry, Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 8 expired. Opposite Party No. 6 is a Chief Anaesthesiologist, Opposite Party No. 7 a Doctor and Opposite Party No. 9 is a Nurse in O.T. of Manipal Hospital, Bangalore.

2. Complainant No. 1 was born on 13.1.92; the parents of C-l, that is, C-2 and C-3, took the baby to Opposite Party 3 the Paediatric Surgeon at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, on 26.2.92. Opposite Party No. 3 examined the baby and diagnosed as having inguinal hernia on the right side and has advised immediate surgery. Complain- ants 2 and 3 got C-1, when he was 65 days old, admitted in the Opposite Party hospital on 19.3.92 for hernia surgery. The






































































































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