Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A, B, JJ
Dr. Mohan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. G. Mangayarkarasi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. determination of appeals based on the initial ruling and facts presented. (Para 1 , 8 , 20) |
| 2. evidence reflects no direct negligence or causation linked to the surgery. (Para 4 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. arguments surrounding consumer status and timeliness of the complaint. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
1. This Order shall decide both the first appeals arising from the impugned Judgment / Order dated 3.2.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Dispute No. 2/2006, wherein the State Commission allowed the complaint and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.12,00,000 & Rs.2,00,000 towards costs.
2. For the convenience, the parties are being referred to as in the Complaint before the State Commission
3. Brief relevant facts of the case are that the Complainant Mrs. G. Mangayarkarasi (for short, 'the patient'), an auto rickshaw driver was suffering from thyroid problem. She consulted Dr. Mohan Kumar (OP - 2) in his private clinic. He was working in Govt. General Hospital, Puducherry (OP - 5). On 4.3.2003, he performed thyroid surgery and discharged her on 10.3.2003. It was alleged that the Complain
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
