BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.403 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.553 OF 2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, VISAKHAPATNAM
Between
1. Chaitanya
D.No.14-37-44, Collector’s Office Junction
Krishna Nagar, Visakhapatnam
2. NRKAged about 45 years, Consultant Pathologist
Of
D.SrinivasaAged 35 years, R/o
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for the Respondent
F.A.No.1182 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.553 OF 2008
Between
D.SrinivasaAged 35 years, R/Sairam
1. Chaitanya
D.No.14-37-44, Collector’s Office Junction
Krishna Nagar, Visakhapatnam
2. NRKAged about 45 years, Consultant Pathologist
Of
Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondents
QUORUM
MONDAY THE
Oral Order
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
1.
2.
12.
CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS
GROSS APPEARANCE
MICROSCOPIC APPEARANCE
13.
After careful perusal of the case record, we find that by means of their report dated 19.6.2008 i.e., Ex.A1, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 diagnosed the Complainant’s case as “Deposits of Moderately Differentiated
14.
1. The medical professional is expected to bring a
2.
3.In
15.
16. 17. `75,000/- against the appellants which by
18.
19.
20. `75,000/- in the circumstances where the respondent had not undergone treatment based on the report issued by the appellants and he is stated to have been under the treatment subsequent to evaluation made at`50, 000/- .
21.
KMK*
