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

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 35183

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Kuldeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Amarjit Singh Rattan and Others – Respondent
SC/3/A/666/2022



Petitioner Advocates:BHupinder Kaur ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Date of institution : 05.08.2022 Date of Reserve : 03.02.2025 Date of Decision : 17.02.2025 Kuldeep Singh, Son of Sh.Hakam Singh, Resident of Village Bhamian Khurd, P.O. Mundian Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.

…….Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. Dr.Amarjit Singh Rattan, Multi Speciality Hospital and Clinical Laboratory, St.No.2 and 3, Harcharan Nagar, near Shingar Cinema, Samrala Road, Ludhiana.

2. Dr.Manoj Jain, M.S. (General Surgery), Bhagwan Ram Charitable Hospital, Daresi Ground, Ludhiana.

3. Christian Medical College & Hosptial, Ludhiana.

4. Satguru Partap Singh Apollo Hospital, Sherpur Chowk, Ludhiana.

…….Respondents/Opposite Parties First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ludhiana in CC No.306 of 2013.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present :-

For the appellant : Ms.Bhupinder Kaur, Advocate For respondents No.1&3 : Sh.R.S.Mattu, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Sh.M.S.Khillan, Advocate For respondent No.4 : None SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER This Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘The Act’) being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ludhiana (in short ‘the District Commission’) whereby the Complaint of the Complainant had been dismissed. 2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant before the District Commission are that in the month of November 2011, the Complainant had taken his mother Karnail Kaur to OP No.1 as she had complained of pain in her abdomen. After examination, OP No.1 had diagnosed that there was a cyst in the abdomen which could be removed by way of Laparoscopic surgery. OP No.1 had informed that it would be painless surgery and the patient would be discharged immediately thereafter. As a result, OP No.1 had admitted Karnail Kaur on 09.11.2011. She was operated upon in the morning of 10.11.2019 and was discharged on the same day in the evening. However, on the intervening night of 11.11.2019, the patient Karnail Kaur again felt severe pain in her abdomen. The Complainant contacted OP No.1 and informed him about the condition of Karnail Kaur. OP No.1 had responded casually that she had been prescribed pain killers which should be repeated. However, still the pain was there. Thereafter, the Complainant had taken his mother to hospital of OP No.1, who had admitted Karnail Kaur and administered injection due to which she fell asleep. OP No.1 and OP No.2 had again operated upon Karnail Kaur on 12.11.2014, just to cover up the previous negligent/careless surgery conducted by OP No.1. During the said surgery, OP No.1 had punctured her Bowel Pipe. At the time of second surgery, OP No.1 had pulled the Bowel Pipe of Karnail Kaur in second surgery as a result thereof she became unconscious. Thereafter, the condition of Karnail Kaur had started to deteriorate. The Complainant had requested to OP No.1 to refer her to Christian Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana. OP No.1 had reluctantly agreed to refer the patient to OP No.3. Later on the Complainant came to know that the Bowel Pipe was punctured by the OP No.1 while performing Laparoscopic Surgery which was carried out negligently and carelessly. This negligence had caused severe infection in her body. The patient had to be put on ventilator support which was not readily available with OP No.3. As a result, the attendin

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top