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

AJIT BHARIHOKE, ANUP K.THAKUR
SUBHADRA DRAVIDA – Appellant
Versus
GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Sundari Pisupati, Advocate, for the Complainants

ORDER

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member. - Complainants are the widow and minor son of the deceased Akshantala. Opposite Party No. 1 is the manufacturer of medicine 'Wellbutrin', OP No. 2 is the Administrative Office of Opposite Party No. 1 in India, Opposite Party No. 3 is the doctor who treated the deceased Akshantala and OP No. 4 is the hospital, where Opposite Party No. 3 was practising and where he treated the deceased.

2. The allegations of the complainants are that deceased Akshantala was a Systems Applications and Products Consultant with Back Office Associates, Boston, USA. He migrated to USA on Hl-B Visa in the month of July 2005. Late Akshantala used to work late hours and as a result, he developed stress related health problem.

3. In October, 2008 deceased along with complainant No. 1 consulted Dr. Alexander Myers at High Point, North Carolina and he was prescribed drug Mitrazapine.

4. On 19.5.2009 as Dr. Alexander Myers was not available, the deceased along with complainant No. 1 visited and consulted Opposite Party No. 3 doctor in Opposite Party No. 4 hospital. Opposite Party No. 3 doctor after detailed check-up on medical history and background of the deceased, opined

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