In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.
In present facts of the case, the revision petition was filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which assails the order dated 05.05.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh allowing the appeal and dismissing order dated 28.01.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhatinda.
In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition was filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which assails order dated 06.02.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
In present facts of the case, the revision petition was filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 assailing the order dated 11.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur.
In present facts of the case, it was held that findings of State Commission that the patient and his family members were not informed about the risk nor their consent was obtained, do not suffer from any illegality as procedure/risk was explained to the patient.
In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 14.12.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’).
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) have refused to condone the delay for 125 days as no ‘sufficient cause’ was shown because there was difference in oral submissions and the contents of the Application submitted.
In present facts of the case, the Complaint of the patient was dismissed and it was observed that it is natural that if any patient consults with a doctor, then he would inform about all alternative modes of treatment.
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) have allowed the Revision Petition in favour of the Complainant as medical negligence of the doctor was established as the Complainant was able to discharge its initial burden of proof.
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) allowed the Revision Petition on the basis of ‘medical negligence’ as the Government Guidelines issued by Ministry of Health pertaining to Swine Flu was not followed properly which have resulted into death of the patient.
