NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/278/2010

SOU. SARIKA NANDKUMAR DHAIGUDE - Complainant(s)

Versus

DURYODHAN D. RANVARE - Opp.Party(s)

MR. AMOL N. SURYAWANSHI

10 Feb 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 278 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 10/08/2007 in Appeal No. 1633/2007 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. SOU. SARIKA NANDKUMAR DHAIGUDER/o at C/o. P.B. Devkate, Rajivnagar, Kolki, Tal. PhaltanSatara ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. DURYODHAN D. RANVAREChairman, Indira Charitable trust Dattkrupa Golibar MaidanPhaltan2. DR. SHRI. PANKAJ RAMARAO JAGTAPR.at Golibar Maidan, PhaltanSatara3. DR. GUNJAN JOTSNA PANKAJ JAGTAPR/at Golibar Maidan, PhaltanSatara4. SOU. NETRA GUNJAN GANDHIR/at Raviwar peth, Near Nagar Palika, PhaltanSatara5. DR. KIRAN DNYANDEV NALER/at Malojiraje Nagar, Kolki Tal. PhaltanSatara ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 10 Feb 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 61 days delay is condoned. On merits, I find that District Forum and State Commission have rightly come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. The Respondent opted for caesarean surgery after monitoring the Petitioner for about 41 hours which necessitated intervention as a swelling on the head of the child and the umbilical cord was wrapped around of new born child. Respondent has taken permission from the father of the Petitioner before performing the said operation. Both mother and child are normal. The case of the Petitioner is that in spite of that he can explain everything, her consent was not taken before performing the caesarean operation by the Respondent. She also alleged that the caesarean operation was performed by the Respondent only for monitory interest. In our view, in an emergency situation, Respondent doctor has rightly taken the decision to save the mother and the child and there is no medical negligence on the part of the Respondent. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no reason to interfere with the well reasoned orders of the State Commission. The revision is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................RAJYALAKSHMI RAOPRESIDING MEMBER