NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4623/2009

HEMALATHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. ARCEES MATERNITY & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

02 Mar 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 17 Dec 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/4623/2009
(Against the Order dated 30/10/2009 in Appeal No. 390/2006 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. HEMALATHA16/18, Manjanakara Street, CumbumTheniTamil Nadu ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. M/S. ARCEES MATERNITY & ANR.Represented by its Director/Proprietor, 7, Balasubramania Nagar, Perundurai RoadEordeTamil Nadu2. DR. C. RAJLAKSHMI M/S. ACREED, MATERNITY17, Balasubramaniya Nagar, Perundurai RoadErode - 11 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 02 Mar 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.

 

Perused the letter dated 22.1.2010 sent by the petitioner.    
          In terms of the impugned order dated 30.10.2009, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Tamil Nadu, Chennai has set aside the order of District Forum dated 2.5.2006 whereby the respondents /opposite parties were directed to return amount of Rs.15000/- collected from the petitioner/complainant, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost. As may be seen from the impugned order, the State Commission has
 
 
- 2-
returned findings that the District Forum before whom the complaint was filed did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain/ decide the complaint and the respondents were not negligent/deficient in service in providing treatment to the petitioner. State Commission has given cogent reasons for reaching the findings on both these counts. Having considered these findings, we are not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order of State Commission, in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
                                 

     



......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER