Anita Panwar VS Meena

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

J. RAJENDRA, ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
Anita Panwar – Appellant
Versus
Meena – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shubham Singh and Mr. Kamal Kishore, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate

JUDGMENT

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against Order dated 22.10.2019, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (“State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 639 of 2019. In the impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner/Appellant while upholding the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (“District Forum”) dated 18.06.2019 in CC No. 244/2015.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that when she was on the family way, she was taking treatment from OP-1, Dr. Anita Panwar, and used to visit her hospital for regular check-ups. The OPs gave assurance of a normal delivery to the Complainant, and she paid Rs.10,000/- in cash as advance to the OPs. At the time of delivery, the OPs informed her that the baby was not normal, and therefore a caesarean delivery was necessary. After the surgical procedure, the baby was found to be abnormal and unconscious. When the Complainant asked the doctor what ha