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

M.A.A.KHAN, SUSHMA TANWAR
MAHESH MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
RAM SWAROOP – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Damodar Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Indrajeet Singh, Advocate.

ORDER

Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—This is an appeal by the opposite party to Complaint No. 1063/1994 from the order dated 27.7.1995 whereby the District Forum, Sri Ganganagar held the appellant guilty of medical negligence in the treatment of urinary track problem of the respondent and directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation to the respondent.

2. Relevant facts are these :

The appellant is a doctor by profession and being an urologist treats patients, suffering from urinary problems, at his Clinic/Nursing Home, known as Mishra Nursing Home, Rai Singh Nagar, Distt. Sri Ganganagar. The respondent-complainant was, at the relevant time, working as an IVth Class Govt. employee at Tehsil Rai Singh Nagar.

3. On 23.11.1994 the respondent filed his complaint before the District Forum with the allegations that on 22.2.1994 he consulted the appellant at his Nursing Home in respect of complaint of itching in urinary track and difficulty in passing urine, that the appellant, without conducting any sort of tests and checking, advised him to get himself operated for his problem without loss of any












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