SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3626

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M/S.BOMBAY HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MRS. MEENA. S. DIWAKAR – Respondent
SC/27/A/19/716



STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/19/707 (Arising out of order dated 24/04/2019 in RBT/CC/2018/87 IN CC/09/243 D.F.South Mumbai)

1.Mrs.Meena Shivappa Diwakar

2.Mr.Shivappa Diwakar (since deceased)

through

2(a) Purnima Shivappa Diwakar

2(b) Tushar Shivappa Diwakar 2(c ) Anisha Shivappa Diwakar R/o.Flat no.34, 5th floor Kartar Bhuvan Building Minoo Desai Road Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 ...Appellants/org.complainants Versus

1.Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

2.Dr.Dunghat P.B.Pai (Surgeon)

C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

3.Dr.Nitin D.Pai (Surgeon)

C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

4.Dr.S.Harlalkar (Anesthetist)

C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

5.Dr.Shobha (Clinical Assistant)

C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020 ……Respondents/org.OPs

6. Dr.Mamta (Clinical Assistant)

C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

7. Dr.Maya Parihar Malhotra (Pathologist)

C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

8.Surgeon Capt.Dr.M.K.Gupta (Retd)

Head-Department of Pathology C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020 Appeal No.A/19/716 (Arising out of order dated 24/04/2019 in RBT/CC/2018/87 IN CC/09/243 D.F.South Mumbai)

1.Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

2.Dr.Dunghat P.B.Pai (Surgeon)

C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

3.Dr.Nitin D.Pai (Surgeon) ………Appellants/org.OPs C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

4.Dr.S.Harlalkar (Anesthetist)

C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

5.Dr.Shobha (Clinical Assistant)

C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

6. Dr.Mamta (Clinical Assistant)

C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

7. Dr.Maya Parihar Malhotra (Pathologist)

C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020

8.Surgeon Capt.Dr.M.K.Gupta (Retd)

Head-Department of Pathology C/o. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre through its Trustees

12, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400 020 Versus

1.Mrs.Meena Shivappa Diwakar

2.Mr.Shivappa Diwakar (since deceased) through

2(a) Purnima Shivappa Diwakar

2(b) Tushar Shivappa Diwakar 2(c ) Anisha Shivappa Diwakar …….Respondents/org.complainants R/o.Flat no.34, 5th floor Kartar Bhuvan Building Minoo Desai Road Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT:

Advocate Satish Chandrashekhar for org.complainants Advocate G.N.Shenoy for org.opponents COMMON FINAL ORDER (Dt.17/02/2025)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade – President

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, South Mumbai in Consumer Complaint no.RBT/CC/2018/87 in CC/243/2009 dated 24/04/2019, the original complainants as well as all the opponents have preferred these appeals. Hence, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties to these appeals shall be hereafter called and referred to as per their status in the original Consumer Complaint.

2. The complainant no.1 is a married woman having three children. The complainant no.2 is the husband of complainant no.1. At the time of operation of complainant no.1, she was aged about 53 years and complainant no.2 was aged about 63 years. The opponent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top