NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/362/2007

SITARAM BHARTIYA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND RESEARCH - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIDYA BHUSAN JAIN & OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. CHIRAMEL & CO.

03 Sep 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
APPEAL NO. 362 OF 2007
 
(Against the Order dated 20/04/2007 in Complaint No. C 322/1997 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. SITARAM BHARTIYA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE & CENTER
B 16 MEHRAULIT INST AREA
NEW DELHI 110016
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. VIDYA BHUSAN JAIN & OTHERS
R/O B 11 MAHRANI BAGH
NEW DELHI
NEW DELHI 110065
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Appellant :
Mr. Jos Chiramel, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate with
Ms. Sushila Thakral, Advocate for R-1

Dated : 03 Sep 2012
ORDER

By the impugned order, the State Commission has directed the appellant Hospital which was opposite party no.1 before the State Commission, to pay Rs.5 Lacs to the respondent for the alleged medical negligence committed by the Doctors who were working in the appellant’s hospital.  Strangely, the Doctors have been absolved of any liability.  Counsel for the respondent states that he is not in a position to defend the order passed by the State Commission. 

 

-2-

Counsel for the parties are agreed that the impugned order of the State Commission be set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law. 

          State Commission has found the appellant Hospital guilty of medical negligence on the basis of assumptions, presumptions, drawing inferences from common knowledge and conjectures (referred to paras 17-20).  We are of the opinion that due attention to the points involved has not been given by the State Commission.  In order to do complete justice between the parties we deem it appropriate to remit the case back to the State Commission.   Accepting the joint request made by counsel for the parties, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law.

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 01.11.2012.

          Nothing stated in the order of the State Commission be taken as an expression of opinion.

          All contentions are left open.

 

-3-

          Since it is an old case we would request the State Commission to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance.

          Parties will not be permitted to lead any additional evidence.

          Under the orders of this Commission dated 26.06.2007, appellant had deposited Rs.2,50,000/- with this Commission.  Since the impugned order has been set aside, office is directed to release the deposited amount to the appellant along with accrued interest.

          Appeal is disposed of in above terms.

 

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

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.