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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2454

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Inderjit Singh & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Bronchoscopy and Asthma Care Centre & Ors. – Respondent
SC/3/A/655/2022



Petitioner Advocates:Updip Singh ,Respondent Advocate: SHARAD MEHRA 1 TO 2 LALIT GARG 3

ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR – 37A, CHANDIGARH.

Date of Institution : 19.07.2022 Reserved on : 27.02.2026 Decided on : 18.03.2026

1. Mr. Inderjit Singh S/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh (Husband) 2. Mr. Ramesh Inder Singh S/o Sh. Inderjit Singh (Son)

3. Mr. Tejinder Singh S/o Sh. Inderjit Singh (Son)

All legal heirs of deceased Smt. Gurbir Kaur R/o 1, Bhandari Estate, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar.

.….Appellants/Complainants Versus

1. Bronchoscopy and Asthma Care Centre, Indu Villa, B-96, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Principal Officer.

2. Dr. Vanita Sarin C/o Bronchoscopy and Asthma Care Centre, Indu Villa, B-96, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar

3. Dr. B.C. Sarin C/o Bronchoscopy and Asthma Care Centre, Indu Villa, B-96, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar

4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 57 Railway Link Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager.

.....Respondents/Opposite parties First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 02.06.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar in CC/226/2014 Quorum:-

Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Ms. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate For respondent No.1 to3: Sh. Sharad Mehra, Advocate with Dr.Vanita Sarin & Dr.B.C.Sarin in person For respondent No.4 : Sh. Lalit Garg, Advocate.

KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant against opposite parties ( in short ‘OPs’), under Section 12-13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been dismissed being devoid of any merit.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the complaint, are that the wife of complainant No.1 and mother of complainants No.2 & 3; namely, Smt. Gurbir Kaur got some skin rashes at her neck on 11.11.2011, due to which, she along with her husband Sh. Inderjit Singh approached OP No.2 for consultation at OP No.1-Hospital, who after examining the patient advised certain investigations and further advised to visit again on 12.11.2011. Thereafter on the said date, the complainant No.1 along with his wife visited OP No.2 after going through the said investigation. OP No.2 after examining the patient, referred her to OP No.3, who, without any probe or investigations to know the exact cause of the problem of rashes on her neck, put the patient on Anti Tuberculosis drug therapy. Thereafter, the problem and suffering of the patient was aggravating day by day but OPs No.2 & 3 continued the treatment with the said therapy without giving any proper attention and even did not refer the patient to some other specialized center to know the exact cause of the problem. Further, the OPs started aspiration of the fluid from the affected neck area w.e.f. 13.09.2012 till 05.02.2013 bi weekly, however, they did not get the aspiration investigated, which was against the medical protocol. Thereafter on 13.02.2013, the OPs advised CECT Scan and the same was got conducted at Dhillon C.T.Scan Centre, Amritsar. From the said CT scan report, it was established that there was no Tuberculosis, rather it was malignancy and further probe was advised. The complainant No.1 after getting the said report, approached another specialist, who after further probe, came to the conclusion that the patient was suffering from Malignancy and she was referred to a specialized Oncologist for further treatment. Accordingly, the patient took treatment from ‘Indraprastha Apolo Hospital’ for her ailment but it was too late and she ultimately succumbed with the malignancy and expired on 20.05.2013. The OPs had failed to detect the Malignancy timely and could

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