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

R.K.AGRAWAL, S.M.KANTIKAR
E. Syamala – Appellant
Versus
Alexander Abraham – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Arsh Khan and Mr. A. Karthik, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Abraham Mathews, Advocate

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The instant Revision Petition was filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 104/11 whereby the Appeal filed by the Complainant was dismissed.

2. The main grievance of the Complainant that she had problem at D-5 level, however the opposite parties wrongly performed operation at L-4 and L-5 level and removed portions of the vertebra causing injury to nerves which resulted paralysis below the hip. It was alleged that the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 were not qualified to do neurosurgery. Thereafter, the prolonged Physiotherapy was not fruitful. She consulted a Neurosurgeon at the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, who diagnosed a cyst at D5 level and removed the cyst by operation. Being aggrieved by the negligent treatment by the Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 2, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum, Pathanamthitta.

3. The District Forum dismissed the Complaint. The Complainant challenged the dismissal by filing first Appeal before

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