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

Rangappa – Appellant
Versus
Administrator – Respondent


ORDER

D.R.Vithal Rao, President - In this Complaint, under Sec. 17 read with Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest thereon from the Opp. parties.

2. The complainant met with an accident at 1.00 P.M. on 19-1-1991 at Jayalakshmipuram. Mysore. He sustained fracture of right tibia and head injury. The complainant was shifted to the Opp. parties hospital. Opp. party No. 1 is the Hospital and Opp. party Nos. 2 to 4 are the Doctors. The complainant was admitted in hospital of Opp. party No.1. Certain tests were made and treatment started. The complainant was in the hospital of the opp. parties from 19-1-1991 to 18-2-1991. He was discharged from the hospital on 18-2-1991.

3. It is the case of the complainant that he was unconscious for three days due to head injury and was unable to move about due to the fracture of the right tibia. It is the grievance of the complainant that the opp. parties did not discharge their professional duties properly and neglected in the treatment. The complainant sustained head injury. No proper tests were carried out.

4. Nextly it is the case of the, complainant that the head



















































































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