Case Law Details
Dr. Anamika Dixit Vs Ankit Jain & 2 Ors. (NCDRC Delhi)
Conclusion: In present facts the National Commission dismissed the Appeal by observing that the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the present Revision Petition has been filed under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 05.07.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a Radiologist and is running her radiology hospital. On 01.03.2013, the Petitioner conducted an ultrasound test of Respondent No.2, who was in 19th week of her pregnancy. The report was prepared and handed over to Respondent No. 2 as per the image reflected in the ultrasound machine as well as in the film developed showing single live foetus present in uterus in healthy condition. On 25.04.2013, the Respondent No.2 went to another doctor who advised fresh ultrasound. The fresh ultrasound was done where a report was given that there were twin live foetuses in the uterus of Respondent No.2. On 27.06.2013, Respondent No.2 gave birth to twin female children in Joshi Hospital, Kashipur. On 26.08.2013, Respondent No.1 (husband of Respondent No.2) sent Legal Notice to the Petitioner claiming Rs.15 Lakhs as compensation for wrong report of ultrasound of his wife.
On 05.03.2014, R -1 & 2 (complainants) filed complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum directed to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing complaint i.e. 05.03.2014 till actual date of payment to the complainants for mental and physical loss.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
