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

S.M.KANTIKAR, DINESH SINGH
Pramoda Hospitals – Appellant
Versus
Y. Maithreyi – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mrs. K. Radha, Advocate
For the Respondent: NEMO

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the appellants – opposite parties no. 1 to 4 (the hospital and the doctors). None is present for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

2. This is a case of alleged medical negligence, which resulted in post seizure paralysis of both limbs of the patient.

3. The complaint has been filed by the patient (complainant).

4. The present first appeal has been filed against the interim Orders dated 04.08.2017, 30.08.2017 and 01.11.2017 of the State Commission.

5. The State Commission vide its said Orders dated 04.08.2017, 30.08.2017 and 01.11.2017 has closed the right of the opposite parties no. 1 to 4 to file their written version. The Orders read as below:

Docket order dated 04-08-2017 BNRN.(P) & PVR(M)

Sri Y. Mallikarjuna Rao, father of Complainant present. He filed memo along with postal tracking list with an endorsement “Item delivered”. No representation for OP’s 1 to 3. It is evident from the record that the service on OP’s 1 to 3 was effected on 30-08-2017. Since then the statutory period for filing written version of OP’s 1 to 3 has already been expired. Hence, the right to file the same is forfeited.

For filing written version of OP 4, pos


















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