Lalchand Telwani VS Malti Bhojwani

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SUNITA YADAV, SRIKANT PANDEY
Lalchand Telwani – Appellant
Versus
Malti Bhojwani – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants-Lalchand Talwani & Ors.: Shri Pankaj Waghmode, learned counsel
For the Respondent No.1-Dr. Malti Bhojwani: Shri Deepesh Joshi, learned counsel
For the Respondent No.2-Dr. D. K. Bansal: Shri Nitin Jain, learned counsel
For the Respondent No.4-New India Assurance Co. Ltd.: Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, learned counsel

ORDER

Sunita Yadav, President—Aforesaid appeals arise out of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.575/2004 whereby the complaint filed by the complainants has been allowed.

2. First Appeal No.232/2013 is filed by the opposite party no.1 and 2 doctors for setting aside the impugned order whereas the First Appeal No.468/2013 is filed by the complainants for enhancement of compensation. Since both appeals arise out of same order, therefore, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this order. Facts of the case are taken from First Appeal No.232/2013 unless otherwise stated.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the complaint before the District Commission are that the complainant no.1’s wife and complainant no.2 & 3’s mother Smt. Kavita Talwani having complaint of acute lower abdomen pain consulted the opposite party no.1-Dr. Malti Bhojwani first time on 26.01.2002 and the opposite party no.1-doctor after getting some investigations started treatment. Again on 06.03.2002 she visited the hospital and the opposite party no.1-doctor after examination and investigations prescr