INDER JIT SINGH
Shrivari Sono Scans – Appellant
Versus
B Sureshan T. M – Respondent
ORDER
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 58(1)(B) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 18.04.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 41/2021 in which order dated 29.01.2021 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 173/2019 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the State Commission and order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the District Forum.
2. The Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission in FA/41/2021 and Complainant before the District Forum in Complaint No. 173/2019.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 31.08.2023. Parties filed Written Arguments on 12.12.2023 (Petitioner) and 14.12.2023 and 29.01.2024 (Respondent)
Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Anr. vs. H & R Johnson (India) Limited and Ors.
T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors.
Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr.
National Commission - The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited.
(1) Standard of Care (Advice vs. Persistence) – The Commission clarified that once a doctor advises a necessary diagnostic test (like the Level-II Scan), the burden of compliance shifts to the patien....
(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 –....
Operation was found necessary to sane life of patient.
“Lasik procedure if not performed with reasonable care and skill, which caused retinal displacement amounts to medical negligence.”
(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....
Healthcare providers must adhere to the standard of care associated with their qualifications, reinforcing medical negligence principles.
Medical professionals must adhere to established standards of practice; failing to do so constitutes negligence, justifying compensation to affected patients.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.