Access over 20 million homework & study documents
search

Equivalent Citation: AIR2010SC806, 2009(6)ALD119(SC), 2009(4)AWC4218(SC),

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Rating

Showing Page:
1/9
Equivalent Citation: AIR2010SC806, 2009(6)ALD119(SC), 2009(4)AWC4218(SC),
JT2009(12)SC377, 2009(12)SCALE474, (2009)9SCC709
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 5991 of 2002
Decided On: 11.09.2009
Appellants: Ramesh Chandra Agrawal
Vs.
Respondent: Regency Hospital Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges:
G. S. Singhvi and H. L. Dattu, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Anil Mittal, Vibhuti Sushant and Kailash Chand, Advs
For Respondents/Defendant: Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv., Kush Chaturvedi, Vikas Mehta, Sharmila
Upadhyay, R.K. Tripathi and John L. Joedl, Advs.
Subject: Consumer
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 23; Evidence Act - Section 45
Cases Referred:
Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1191-1194 of
2005 and Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 2007; State of H.P. v. Jai Lal and Ors.
MANU/SC/0557/1999 : (1999) 7 SCC 280; Titli v. Jones AIR 1934 All 237; State of
Maharashtra v. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1691; The State (Delhi
Administration) v. Pali Ram MANU/SC/0189/1978 : AIR 1979 SC 14
Prior History:
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2002 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No. 128 of 1996
Disposition:
Appeal allowed

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/9
Citing Reference:
Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors. Mentioned
State of H.P. v. Jai Lal and Ors. MANU/SC/0557/1999 Discussed
Titli v. Jones Discussed
State of Maharashtra v. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and Ors. Discussed
The State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram MANU/SC/0189/1978 Discussed
Case Note:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 23 r/w Section 45 of Evidence Act, 1872 - Medical
negligence - Physical ailment such as backache and difficulty in walking as a result of
weakness of both lower limbs to a teacher of 60 years - Three successive operations not
successful, ultimately leads to handicapped, due to legs being rendered useless and control
over Bladder was lost - Dismissal of complaint by National Commission - Right of Natural
justice prejudiced - First and foremost requirement is to hear the expert - Expert is not a
witness of fact, his evidence is really of an advisory character - Scientific opinion evidence,
if intelligible, convincing and tested, becomes a factor, often an important factor for
considering alongwith other evidence - Impugned order is set aside - Registrar of the
Commission is directed to forward all the records of the treatment filed by the appellant
before the Commission to Dr. A.K. Singh, Neurologist, who is now working at Fortis
Hospital, Noida, for his expert opinion within one month from the date of receipt of this
order, with a request to give his expert opinion on the basis of the records of the treatment
and affidavits filed by both the parties within two months from the date the records are
made available to him - After receipt of the expert opinion, the Commission is requested to
pass fresh order in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
H.L. Dattu, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No. 128 of 1996 dated 23.5.2002. By the impugned
order National Consumer Commission has rejected the petition filed by the complainant.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
The appellant/complainant was a teacher by profession. He was aged about 60 years when he
was down with physical ailments such as backache and difficulty in walking as a result of
progressive weakness of both his lower limbs. As the problem worsened, on 20.11.1995, the
appellant approached Regency Hospital Ltd. (Respondent No. 1), for Medical check-up. On the
same day, C.T. Scan was done and he was diagnosed as a patient of "Dorsol Cord Compression

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/9

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Equivalent Citation: AIR2010SC806, 2009(6)ALD119(SC), 2009(4)AWC4218(SC), JT2009(12)SC377, 2009(12)SCALE474, (2009)9SCC709 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 5991 of 2002 Decided On: 11.09.2009 Appellants: Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Respondent: Regency Hospital Ltd. and Ors. Hon'ble Judges: G. S. Singhvi and H. L. Dattu, JJ. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Anil Mittal, Vibhuti Sushant and Kailash Chand, Advs For Respondents/Defendant: Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv., Kush Chaturvedi, Vikas Mehta, Sharmila Upadhyay, R.K. Tripathi and John L. Joedl, Advs. Subject: Consumer Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 23; Evidence Act - Section 45 Cases Referred: Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1191-1194 of 2005 and Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 2007; State of H.P. v. Jai Lal and Ors. MANU/SC/0557/1999 : (1999) 7 SCC 280; Titli v. Jones AIR 1934 All 237; State of Maharashtra v. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1691; The State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram MANU/SC/0189/1978 : AIR 1979 SC 14 Prior History: From the Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2002 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No. 128 of 1996 Disposition: Appeal allowed Citing Reference: Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors. Mentioned State of H.P. v. Jai Lal and Ors. MANU/SC/0557/1999 Discussed Titli v. Jones Discussed Stat ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Excellent resource! Really helped me get the gist of things.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4