Back
S.M.KANTIKAR, BINOY KUMAR
Indu CT Scan and Diagnostic Centre – Appellant
Versus
Abhilasha – Respondent
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the impugned Order dated 27.11.2018, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1631/2016, whereby the Order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that Baby Abhilasha about 3 years of age was examined by Dr. V.K. Gupta at BDK Hospital, Jhunjhunu for abdominal pain and vomiting. On 08.05.2015, the Ultra-sonography (USG) was performed by OP-2-Dr. Shekhawat in Indu CT Scan Diagnostic Centre (OP-1) and reported it as 12.8 mm appendicular lump. Dr. V.K. Gupta immediately asked Abhilasha’s father to take opinion from Jaipur. Therefore, on 09.05.2015 he took his daughter by taxi to the paediatric surgeon Dr. Chetan Sharma at SMS Medical College, Jaipur. Again USG was performed which didn’t find appendicular lump and the pain was due to infection in the uterus, it was cured within 7 d
Operation was found necessary to sane life of patient.
(1) Service of Summons - OP was wrongly proceeded against ex-parte before the State Commission, even though the service of the notice upon him was not effected since the OP had by that time already l....
National Commission - The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited.
“Since the treating doctor correctly diagnosed the care for acute appendicitis and treated the patient as per standard accepted procedure, medical negligence ruled out.”
Careless Act - Careless act certainly creates anxiety and agony to the child’s parents; they have suffered pain and mental agony.
Pathological report - The veracity or otherwise of the pathological report should have been considered and examined by the State Commission which it failed to do.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
