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

S.M.KANTIKAR, DINESH SINGH
Sachhikant Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Vikash Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jitendra Dhan Mohan, Advocate

ORDER

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member

The dispute in the instant revision petition relates to alleged medical negligence against the opposite party-doctor.

2. The allegation was that the doctor did not perform the surgery for removal of gall stone.

3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.59,000/- along with interest @10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.

4. Being aggrieved, the OP-doctor filed the first appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently, the complaint was dismissed.

5. Being aggravated by the impugned order of State Commission the complainant filed this instant revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner at the admission stage.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant, Sachhikant Tripathi, (for short ‘the patient’) underwent operation for removal of gall bladder stone. It was performed by Dr. Vikash Singh/OP in his private clinic at Ara. The patient did not get sufficient relief and he was suffering continuous abdominal pain, thence, approached the OP-doctor. Few blood tests and ultrasonography (USG) of abdomen were performed.

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