Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT, S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
G. VIJAYASHANKAR & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
MADRAS MEDICAL MISSION & ORS. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. couple underwent infertility treatments. (Para 1) |
| 2. allegations of negligence and defense arguments. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments summarizing submissions. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's observation on adherence to standards. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. finding that no negligence was established. (Para 8) |
PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
FACTS:
A married couple, Mr. G. Vijayashankar (Complainant No.1) and Mrs. Chitra Vijayashankar (Complainant No. 2, hereinafter referred to as the ‘patient’) was unable to conceive for about 15 years. The couple, for their treatment of infertility, approached Dr. Thankam Verma (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 2’) the specialist in Assisted Reproductive Technique (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ART’) at the Madras Medical Mission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 1’). The Opposite Party No. 2 examined the couple and suggested In-Vitro Fertilization (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IVF’) treatment. The patient underwent IVF procedure twice, but failed to conceive. Therefore, the Opposite Party No. 2 advised to try for Intra Uterine Insemination (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IUI’). In the year 2001 during the 1st c
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
