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

R.K.AGRAWAL, M.SHREESHA
Satish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Rajendro Sangwan – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Manish Garg and Ms. Samridhi, Advocates
For the Respondent: In person

ORDER

M. Shreesha, Member—Aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2012 in CC No. 30 of 2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short the “State Commission”), the Complainants preferred this Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Treating Doctor’.)

2. The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainants’ wife namely Mamta (hereinafter referred to as “the Patient”) was admitted for delivery in Sangwan Clinic, owned and managed by the Treating Doctor. It is averred that on 31.12.2005, the Treating Doctor assured the Complainant that the delivery would take place within two hours. She instructed the Patient to lay down on the bed and gave an injection and asked her attendants to bring the necessary belongings as the delivery pains had already begun. It is stated that the treatment which included giving injecti





































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