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

J.M.Malik, S.M.Kantikar
Prabha G. Nair – Appellant
Versus
Mohanan – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Sheji P. Abraham, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

S.M. Kantikar, Member—The Revision Petition is filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (The Act) against the final order dated 29.09.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Trivandrum, Kerala state (herein State Commission) in Appeal No. 666/03.

2. Facts in brief

The Petitioners were opposite parties in original compliant in District Forum file No 83/1997 and the Respondents were Complainants as husband and two children of deceased Shobhana. The Petitioners/Opposite Parties (OP) No 1 is Gynecologist and the Petitioner/OP No 2 is Chief Medical Officer and Petitioner/OP No 3 is Administrator of the Hospital. The patient Sobhana wife of Respondent/Complainant undergone delivery on 04.12.1995 at night 12.45 p.m. The duty doctor informed the OP-1 that delivery by vaccum extractor has failed. By 09.00 p.m. the OP-1 conducted episiotomy followed by forceps delivery and a still born baby was delivered. The baby was died by cord compression. Immediately after the delivery the patient had profused bleeding along with expulsion of placenta and due to fatal injury to uterus. The patient Sobhana died on 8/12/1995 at 5.20 pm .The death of male baby
















































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