VIKRAM HOSPITAL & HEART CARE & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)
MR. SHANTHKUMAR V. MAHALE
18 May 2010
ORDER
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1744 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 31/03/2010 in Appeal No. 18/2009 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. MR. JU TAEK LIMR/at MIG No. 7, III Stage, KuvempunagarMysoreKarnataka
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. VIKRAM HOSPITAL & HEART CARE & ORS.Superintendent No. 46, Vivekananda Road, YadavgiriMysore - 570020Karnataka2. DR. VASUDEV PAI, SURGICAL GASTROENTEROLOGISTVikram Hospital and Heart Care, No. 46, Vivekananda Road, YadavgiriMysore - 570020Karnataka3. DR. MANISH JOSHI, G I AND LAPAROSCOPIC SURGEONVikram Hospital and Heart Care, No. 46, Vivekananda Road, YadavgiriMysore - 570020Karnataka4. DR. RAJKUMAR P. WADHWA, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GASTEROENTEROLOGYVikram Hospital and Heart Care, No. 46, Vivekananda Road, YadavgiriMysore - 570020Karnataka
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 18 May 2010
ORDER
Dr. Rajkumar P. Wadhwa, Head of the Department of Gastroenterology was OP No. 4 in the complaint filed by the petitioner on ground of alleged medical negligence. In the written version, OP No. 4 has raised objection regarding maintainability of the complaint against them. By the order dated 21.4.2009, the District Forum deleted OP No. 4 from the array of parties, the material portion whereof runs as under:- This stage, counsel for the complainant submitted in the course of enquiry if the complainant is able to prove involvement of OP No. 4 and consequent deficiency in the service he seeks permission of this Forum to implead him. In that event, the complainant is always entitled to do so. Hence, the complainant is directed to delete the OP No.4. Against Forums order, the petitioner filed revision petition which has been dismissed by the State Commission by the order under challenge dated 31.3.2010. Having heard Shri Mahale and taking note of the above extracted portion, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed.
......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER ......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
