Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER, DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER
DR. SHARAD LAKHOTIA – Appellant
Versus
DR. PRAKASH SHARMA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the importance of clear surgical consent and the implications of complicating procedures. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 2. establishing consumer status requires proof of service payment. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 3. negligence claims must be substantiated with expert evidence on medical standards. (Para 12 , 15) |
| 4. lapses in record-keeping do not in themselves imply negligence. (Para 21 , 25) |
ORDER
DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. These two First Appeals (FAs) have been filed by the Appellants under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the common order dated 27.04.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.283 of 2001
2. FA No. 1298 of 2017 has been filed by OP-1, and FA No. 1384 of 2017 has been filed by OP-2. In both Appeals, the Complainant is arrayed as Respondent No. 1. The Appellants, who were Opposite Parties before the State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 283 of 2001, have preferred the present Appeals seeking, inter alia, to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arraye
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
