GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA
Dileshwar Verma – Appellant
Versus
Sona Bai – Respondent
ORDER
Gautam Chourdiya, President.—This order will govern disposal of all the above three appeals filed under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short) arising out of separate impugned orders passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) by which the District Commission partly allowed the complaints and directed the opposite party/appellant to pay compensation as under:—
| Sr. No. | Appeal No. | Complaint Case No. | Date of Impugned Order | The opposite party/appellant was directed to pay |
| 1 | FA/24/87 | CC/21/119 | 27.12.2023 | Medical expenses of Rs.1,79,990/-, compensation for physical, mental and financial loss Rs.20,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/-. All above amount was directed to be paid with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 08.02.2021 till realization. If the opposite party/appellant fails to pay the above amount within 60 days, the interest was directed to be paid @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 08.02.2021. |
| 2 | FA/24/88 | CC/21/118 | 27.12.2023 | Medical expenses of Rs.2,08,931/-, |
Medical Negligence – Negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which event principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made applicable & not based on perception.
Shifting of patient – it is proved beyond doubt that it was not the Complainant’s decision of shifting the patient but the Appellant and the Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital referred the patient to any ....
Negligence in medical treatment must be proven with concrete evidence, and mere adverse outcomes do not imply failure of care.
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.