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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2416

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA


FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/781/2017



DR.S.K.DHAWAN PRESENT ADDRESS - ORTHPAEDIC SURGEON C/O SHAWAN ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL ARYA NAGAR JAGADHRI ROAD, AMBALA CANTT DISTT.AMBALA,HARYANA........Appellant(s)

Versus

SHAM LAL PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O NARATA RAM VILLAGE SURAKPUR TEHSIL SHAHBAD DISTT.KURUKSHETRA,HARYANA........Respondent(s)



FOR THE APPELLANT:


MR. ROHIT HATWAL PROXY COUNSEL FOR MR. NITIN SOOD, COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT NO.1.


MR. VINOD CHAUDHARY, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT NO.2.


FOR THE RESPONDENT:


MR. ASHUTOSH BLIVES, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.



BEFORE:


MR. S . P . SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER


MR. SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK , MEMBER


DATED: 10/03/2026


10th March, 2026



S.C. Kaushik


S.P. Sood



Member


Judicial Member



Addl. Bench Addl. Bench


D.K.



..................


S . P . SOOD


JUDICIAL MEMBER



..................


SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK


MEMBER

Petitioner Advocates:NITIN SUD ,Respondent Advocate:

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

Date of Institution: 30.06.2017

Date of final hearing: 10.03.2026

Date of order: 10.03.2026

First Appeal No.781 of 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. Dr. S.K. Dhawan, Orthopaedic Surgeon, C/o Shawan Orthopaedic Hospital, Arya Nagar, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt., District Ambala.

2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., #6269, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt., through its Branch Manager....Appellants

Versus

1. Sham Lal S/o Sh. Narata Ram, Resident of Village Surakpur, Tehsil Shahbad, District Kurukshetra.

2. Dr. Sumit Kalra, Kalra Physiotherapy Centre, Jagdish Marg, Shahbad (M), District Kurukshetra.…..Respondents

CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER

Present:- Mr. Rohit Hatwal proxy counsel for Mr. Nitin Sood, counsel for the appellant No.1. Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, counsel for appellant No.2. Mr. Ashutosh Blives, counsel for respondent No.1. Name of respondent No.2 already deleted vide order dated 15.09.2017.

ORDER

PER: S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

1. Delay of 08 days in filing of present appeal stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in application seeking condonation of delay.

2. In present appeal No.781 of 2017; legality of order dated 17.05.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.287 of 2012 has been assailed; vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed.

3. Factual Matrix: Complainant was suffering regular pain in his right leg lower limb and he got examined himself form M.M. Institute of Medical Science & Research, where his MRI was done and it was found that Lumbar Lordotic Curvature is straightened. The Lumber intervertebral disc space shows loss of T2W hyper intensity at multiple lumbar levels S/O disc desiccation with slight reduction of intervertebral disc height at L4-L5 level Type-II end plate changes are seen at L4-L5 level. Posterior disc bulge with small right paracentral disc protrusion is seen at L4- L5 level causing mild compression of the thecal sac and compressing B/L nerve roots in neural foramine (RT-LT). Posterior disc bulge with small right paracentral disc protrusion is seen at L5-S1 level mildly intending the thecal-sac and compressing the right sided existing nerve foot. Complainant took the treatment and medicines but he did not get any relief. On 18-07-2011, complainant met Dr. Sumit Kalra at Kalra Physiotherpy Centre, Shahbad (M), District Kurukshetra, where doctor said to complainant that Dr. S.K. Dhawan-OP No.1 will visit his house to attend a party and he advised the complainant to come to his house for check-up by OP No. 1. In evening, complainant visited the house of Dr. Sumit Kalra, where OP No. 1 checked him and also studied his MRI report and advised for operation of spinal cord in his hospital at Ambala. Complainant was referred to the hospital of OP No. 1. On 20.07.2011, complainant was suggested by OP No. 1 for conducting surgery for the said disease. OP No. 1 assured the complainant that after surgery the said problem will be treated and complainant will become hale and hearty as before within 3 or 4 days and complainant will do his routine work as before. OP No. 1 demanded Rs.50,000/- for surgery and treatment and complainant paid the same. On the same day i.e. 20.07.2011, surgery of the complainant was conducted by OP No. 1 and it was assured that now he will not face any problem in future in his right lower leg. On 27.07.2011 complainant was discharged from the hospital after giving some medicine by OP No. 1. Complainant got the medicines, as per advise, but he did not recover and there is regular pain in his right lower leg. On 16.08.2011, complainant again visited the hospital of OP No. 1 and asked him about the problem, but OP No. 1 again assured that after sometime the pain will subside and gave some more medicines to comp

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