LexA. SRIMANNARAYANA versus DASARI SANTAKUMARI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 1 S.C.R. 230 A. SRIMANNARAYANA v. DASARI SANTAKUMARI & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 368 of 2013) JANUARY 09, 2013 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Judgment - Complaint against doctors - Before District Consumer Forum - Alleging medical negligence - Notice C issued - Challenged by the doctors on the ground that complaint could not have been registered without seeking opinion of an expert in terms of decision in *Martin F. D'Souza's case - National Commission, by impugned judgment rejected the challenge relying on **V. Kishan Rao's o case wherein Martin F.D'Souza's case was held per incuriam - On appeal, held: The judgment in Martin F. D'Souza has been correctly declared per incuriam by the judgment in V. Krishna Rao's case as the Jaw laid down in Martin F. D'Souza's case was contrary to the Jaw laid down in ***Jacab Mathew's E case - Impugned judgment does not call for interference - Appeals dismissed - Medical Negligence. *Martin F. D'Souza vs. Mohd. /shfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1: 2010 (5)SCR 1; **V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super speciality Hospital and Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 513: 2009 (3) F SCR 273; *** Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2005) 6 sec 1- referred to. G H Case Law Reference: 2009 (3) SCR 273 2010 (5) SCR 1 (2005) s sec 1 Referred to Referred to Referred to Para 6 Para 6 Para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 368 of 2013. 230 A. SRIMANNARAYANA v. DASARI SANTAKUMARI & 231 ANR. From the Judgment & Order dated 15.07.2010 of National A Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in R.P. No. 2032 of 2010. WITH C.A. No. 369 of 2013. B A.D.N. Rao, A. Ramesh, D. Geetha, R. Chandrachud, A. Venayagam Balan for the Appellant. K.K. Kishore, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondent. c The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Delay condoned 2. Leave granted. D 3. These appeals arising out of the aforesaid special leave petitions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2010 in R.P. No. 2032 of 2010 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter E referred to as "the National Commission"), New Delhi. 4. Relevant facts are taken from Special Leave Petition (C) No.26043 of 2010. 5. The appellant and respondent No.2, who are doctors, F conducted an operation on the left leg of the husband of the complainant. Sometime after the operation, the patient died on 13.07.2008. Respondent No. 1, wife of the deceased, filed a complaint against the appellant and respondent No.2, before the District Consumer Forum. We may notice here that G respondent No.2 is the appellant in Civil Appeal No ........................... of 2013 arising out of SLP(C) No.1495 of 2011. The complaint was duly registered and notice was issued to the appellant and respondent No.2. Against the issuance of the notice, the appellant filed a revision petition H 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad on the ground that the complaint could not have been registered by the District Forum without seeking an opinion of an expert in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd. /shfaq (2009) B 3 SCC 1. In this revision petition, respondent No.2 filed IA No.2240 of 2009 praying for stay of proceedings before the District Consumer Forum. The State Commission rejected the revision petition by granting liberty to the appellant to file the necessary application before the District Forum to refer the C matter to an expert. He did not file any application before the District Forum, but challenged the aforesaid order of the State Commission by filing revision petition No. 2032 of 2010 before the National Commission. The revision petition has been dismissed by the National Commission by relying upon the 0 subsequent judgment of this Court in V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 513, wherein this Court has declared that the judgment rendered in Martin F. D'Souza (supra) is per incuriam. Hence the present special leave petitions challenging the aforesaid order of the National E Commission dated 15.07.2010. 6. Heard Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and respondent No.2 and Mr. K.K. Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, at length. F 7. Mr. Rao has tried to persuade us that t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.