Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Judge Unknown, J
Dr. Sunita Verma – Appellant
Versus
Sangeeta Dubey – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. patient experienced complications post-surgery. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding the qualifications of medical professionals. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. assessment of service standards and negligence. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 4. final direction for compensation and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 16) |
1. The two Petitioners have filed the present Revision Petitions against the impugned order dated 8.4.2015 passed in Appeal No. FA / 13/213 and FA / 13/184 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commissionâ€).
2. For the convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their original position in the Complaint, i.e. Dr. Sunita Verma as the Opposite Party No. 1, Dr. V.K. Dikshit as the Opposite Party No. 2 and New India Insurance Co. Ltd. as the Opposite Party No. 3.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant Sangeeta Dubey (for short ‘the patient’) underwent hysterectomy operation in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) at Bilaspur on 22.8.2005 and discharged on 31.8.2005. It was performed by Dr. Sunita Verma, the Opposite Party No. 1. The Complainant alleged th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
