LexANIRUDH AGGARWAL versus DHARAM BIR BHATIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009] 6 S.C.R. 914 ANIRUDH AGGARWAL v. DHARAM BIR BHATIA (Civil Appeal No. 2770 of 2009) APRIL 15, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) C Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 12 - Medical negligence - Payment of compensation - Respondent filed claim petition alleging that appellant left treatment of his daughter's teeth midway - District Forum directed appellant to pay compensation of Rs.25,0001- and cost of Rs.3,0001- to D respondent - State Commission held that no medical negligence was involved but directed that respondent be paid Rs.14,0001- i.e. the amount purportedly paid by him for treatment - Both respondent and appellant filed revision petition before National Commission - National Commission E dismissed revision petition filed by appellant - On appeal, held: Prima facie, the National Commission was not justified in dismissing the revision petition filed by appellant - Its conclusions that the forums below had recorded concurrent finding about the appellant being negligent and not treating F the respondent's daughter is contrary to the conclusion recorded by the State Commission - Hence, revision petition of the appellant directed to be heard along with the revision petition filed by respondent. Respondent filed claim petition before the District G Consumer Protection Forum under s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that the appellant started treatment of his daughter's teeth but left the treatment midway which caused pain and agony to her. The District Forum directed the appellant to pay compensation of H 914 • .. ANIRUDH AGGARWAL v. DHARAM BIR BHATIA 915 Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent. Both/ A appellant and the respondent approached the State Commission. While the appellant questioned the legality of the direction for payment of compensation, the respondent sought for enhancement of the amount. After referring to the factual aspects, the State Commission B held that there was no medical negligence involved but directed that the respondent be paid Rs.14,000/- i.e. the . amount purportedly paid by him for treatment Both respondent and the appellant filed revision petition before the National Commission. By the C impugned order, the National Commission came to a conclusion that there was a concurrent finding by the District Forum as well as the State Commission that the appellant was negligent in not treating the daughter of respondent, and dismissed the revision petition filed by D appellant on the ground that medical negligence was writ large and no interference was called for. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: Prima facie, the National Commission was not E justified in dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant. Its conclusions that the forums below had recorded concurrent finding about the appellant being negligent and not treating the respondent's daughter is contrary to the conclusion recorded by the State F Commission. That being so, the impugned order passed by the National Commission is set aside and the revision petition of the appellant is directed to be heard along with the revision petition filed by the respondent. [Para 7] [918- E-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2770 of 2009. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.2008 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New G Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1146 of 2008. H 916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 6 S.C.R. A S.K. Dubey, K.B. Thakur and KV. Mohan for the Appellant. " Respondent-In-Person. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short 'the Commission') dismissing the petition which was filed by .. the appellant seeking revision of the order of the State c Commission, Rajasthan (in short the ·State Commission') 3. The respondent filed a claim petition before the District Consumer Protection Forum - Second, Jaipur (in short the 'Distrid Forum') under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act'). It was alleged in the complaint that the D present appellant started treatment of the teeth of the complainant's daughter on the basis of the recommendation made by Dr. Anjali Dave Tiwari who was respondent No.1 in the complaint petition. E 4. It was alleged that that the present app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.