Back
INDER JIT SINGH
Anil Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jitendra Kr. Singh – Respondent
ORDER
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against two separate orders dated 31.08.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.1729 of 2013 and 1922 of 2013 in which order dated 18.07.2013 of Balia District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 151 of 2011 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the orders dated 31.08.2016 of the State Commission.
2. Both the Petitioner and Respondent filed separate FA in the State Commission against the order of the District Forum, which was disposed vide two separate orders dated 31.08.2016. The Appeal No. 1922 of 2013 was filed by the Petitioner / complainant for enhancement of the compensation, while Appeal No. 1729 of 2013 was filed by the Respondent / Opposite Party for setting aside the order dated 18.07.2013 of the District Forum.
3. While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant in FA No. 1922 of 2013
(1) Revision – A revision under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and scope for revis....
(1) Duty of care – The duty of care implies that the doctor must exercise reasonable skill and care, adhering to the standards expected of a medical professional in similar circumstances.(2) Breach –....
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.
(1) Degrees of negligence in criminal negligence and negligence under civil law are jurisprudentially different—It is only to fasten liability in criminal law that degree of negligence has to be gros....
National Commission - The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited.
“Medical negligence cases need expeditious disposal of matter in the interest of justice.”
The court upheld that medical negligence claims must be substantiated with expert evidence, and standard surgical practices cannot be deemed negligent without such proof.
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
