Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT, S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
BABY SHAISTHA THROUGH LRs. – Appellant
Versus
M/S. WOCKHARDT HEART CENTRE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdictional basis for the revision petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background facts of the patient's surgery and subsequent allegations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of the evidence and expert opinions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. findings of no negligence in the medical care provided. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion drawn on the basis of prior assessments and dismissal of the revision. (Para 15) |
PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 3529 of 2013, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the Order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 126 of 2008 was affirmed.
2. For the convenience the Parties are referred as in the Complaint filed before the District Forum.
3. The facts in brief are that the patient Baby Shaistha, for her congenita
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
