Rohit Mittal VS Anna Child Care

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUBHASH CHANDRA, SADHNA SHANKER
Rohit Mittal – Appellant
Versus
Anna Child Care – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Munish Goel, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar with Ms Guneet Khehar, Advocates

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—These appeals challenge order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, “State Commission”) dated 19.10.2012 in CC No. 42 of 2007 under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”). The State Commission considered allegations of medical negligence against the respondent nos. 1 to 3 in FA 757/2012 and held them liable to compensate the complainants/appellants. While the appellants have approached this Commission for enhancement of compensation, the respondents seek to be absolved of the liability in FA 771/2012 filed by them. As the facts in the case are similar and emanate from a common order, these appeals will be disposed by way of a common order. For reasons of convenience, the facts are taken from FA 757/2012.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. Respondents contentions in their submission before the State Commission is taken as their final submission.

3. The brief conspectus of facts in the case is that appellant 2, wife of appellant 1, was admitted to respondent 4 hospital (Sehat Medicare, Patiala) on 01.11.2005 and delivered a prem