What
is Law
     Right
of Doctors
     Responsibilities    
Negligence    
Consents     Records    
Cases

       

Legislations    
Medical
Ethics
      FAQ’s

   

    

Nephrologist

      
          

  • Shivaji
    Gendeo Chavan v Chief Director 
    Wanless Hospital & Anr


    1995 (3) CPJ 43 ( Mah SCDRC)

      

    The complainant’s 18 year old son was
    suffering from chronic renal failure
    and was advised replacement of kidney
    . He was admitted in hospital and
    dialysis was done for which a venous
    caheter was introduced in the right
    thigh and kept in situ (in the 
    same position in the body) as he would
    require frequent dialysis . But due to
    lack of proper dressing  and
    medical attention this site developed
    pus leading to A.V Fistula and
    resulting into gangrene of the right
    leg . In order to save the life of the
    patient  , the amputation of the
    leg was necessary . The patient died
    20 days thereafter. The commission
    decided the case in favour of the
    complainant mainly on the basis of the
    affidavit filed by the complainant and
    another experienced doctor who
    testified in favour of the
    complainant.

     

    The hospital was directed to pay to
    the complainant Rs 2 lacs as
    compensation.

       

  • CHARAN
    SINGH v. HEALING TOUCH HOSPITAL


    III
    (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)

       

    Medical Negligence : Paralysis on
    Right Side, Permanent Disablement,
    illegal Removal of One Kidney :
    Jursdiction : Compensation : Claim not
    “unrealistic”,
    “Exaggerated” or
    “Excessive” – Appellant was
    operated upon for removal of
    “Stone from Urethra” in
    respondent No 1 hospital- Certain
    Complications arose on account of
    negligence of spinal anesthesia and
    performing operation – Appellant
    paralysed on right hand side of his
    body – No improvement despite
    medicines – He also started passing
    blood along with urine- Advised to
    undergo another operation- Paralytic
    condition continued – His left kidney
    removed when he was in drowsy state -
    Appellant claimed Rs 34 lakhs by way
    of compensation from respondents -
    National Consumer Forum was not fair
    in disposing to complaint by styling
    his claim as “excessive” or
    “exaggerated” after six
    years of pendency of complaint – No
    opportunity given to appellant to
    substantiate his case- Obligation to
    give reasons not only introduces
    clarity but it also excludes or
    minimizes chances of arbitrariness and
    higher Forum can test correctness of
    those reasons – National Consumer
    Forum has Jurisdiction without
    pecuniary limitations, to award proper
    compensation, even less than one
    claimed in a given case- Complaint
    petition filled by appellant for
    compensation pending before National
    Consumer Forum for six long years -
    Pleadings completed – Appellant
    condemned unheard after waiting for
    six years.

      

    – Impugned order of National Consumer
    Forum set aside – Complaint remanded
    to National Consumer Forum for
    disposal in accordance with law -
    Consumer protection Act, !986 -
    Section 23

      

    Dr. A. S. Anand, CJI. This appeal
    under 23 Section of the Consumer
    Protection Act, is directed against an
    order of the National Consumer
    Disputes Redressal Comission, New
    Delhi (hereinafter the “National
    Consumer Forum”) dated 9th
    August, 1999 dismissing a complaint
    field by the appellant, without
    expressing any opinion on the merits
    of the case, but granting liberty to
    appellant to ” make a realistic
    claim” and move the State
    Commission or District Forum, as the
    case may be in accordance with law.
    The National Consumer Forum further
    directed that time spent before, it
    should be taken into account for
    purpose of computing period of
    limitation by the appropriate forum
    where the appellant moves his
    complaint.

      

    With a view to dispose of this appeal,
    we would refer only to minimal
    relevant facts as emerge from the
    record before us.

      

    In 1993, according to the appellant,
    he went to the Healing Touch Hospital,
    respondent No 1. for treatment of
    stomach ache and burning sensation
    while passing urine. He was examined
    by respondent No. 2, Dr. A.J.S. Juneja,
    who admitted him in respondent No 1
    hospital on 12.1.1993 for an operation
    for removal of “stone from the
    urethra”. At the time of
    operation, it was respondent No. 1, Dr
    Sunil Seth, who administered spinal
    anesthesia to the appellant. Operation
    was performed. Certain complications,
    according to the appellant, arose on a
    account of negligence of respondent
    No. 1 hospital and its team of
    doctors, both in the administration of
    spinal anaesthesia and performing the
    operation. According to the appellant,
    he was paralysed on the right hand
    side of his body. He complained and
    was prescribed some medicines and
    discharged from the hospital. Despite
    taking the prescribed some medicines,
    there was no improvement. He also
    started passing blood along with
    urine. On 1st February 1993, the
    appellant again went to respondent No.
    1 hospital and met respondent No. 2,
    Dr. Juneja, who once again admitted
    him to the hospital. On 9th of
    February 1993, the appellant was
    advised to undergo another operation
    to stop passing of blood with urine.
    The appellant claims that he was taken
    to the operation threatre and after
    administering anaesthesia to him, when
    he in a drowsy state, respondent No 2
    and 3 obtained his signatures on some
    papers. On 10.2.1993, after the
    appellant regained consciousness,
    respondent No 2 and 3 told him that he
    would be discharged from the hospital
    within a couple of days. The right
    side of his body was, however, still
    paralytic and he complained about it
    to the doctors at the hospital.
    According to the appellant, on
    18.2.1993, he was discharged from
    respondent No. 1 hospital in the same
    paralytic condition. He was prescribed
    some medicines, which he kept on
    taking. Since, paralytic condition
    continued, the appellant went back to
    respondent No. 1 hospital where
    respondent No. 2 asked him to go away.
    Appellant claims that he thereafter
    went to Medical Diagnostic Center,
    Hauz Khas, New Delhi. On examination
    of his discharge slip and after
    undertaking certain other tests, the
    appellant was told by the Diagnostic
    Center, that his left kidney had been
    removed. The appellant was shocked to
    hear this and went back to respondent
    No. 3 in the hospital, who told him to
    meet respondent No. 2 and 4. He asked
    them how them how they has removed his
    left kidney during the second
    operation without his knowledge or
    consent. No body was willing to talk
    to him in the hospital and he was made
    to go from one doctor to another.
    Finally, he was turned away from the
    hospital without providing any
    explanation. According to the
    appellant, as a result of the
    negligence of doctors at respondent No
    1. Hospital, he has to use crutches.
    His kidney has also been ‘illegally’
    removed. He states that, as a result,
    he also lost his job with M/s. Durga
    Lakshmi Builders where he was serving
    prior to his operation. He states
    that, he had to spend a fortune for
    paying the exorbitant bills of the
    doctors and the hospital besides
    medicines, tests and or his upkeep.
    The appellant, thereupon, filed a
    complaint in the National Consumer
    Forum and claimed Rs. 34 lakhs by way
    of compensation from the respondents
    in 1993 on various grounds, under
    different heads.

       

    The respondents were put to notice.
    They filed their counter statements
    and replies, to which the appellant
    also filed his rejoinder. While the
    matters rested, thus, the National
    Consumer Forum passed the impugned
    order referred to above six years
    after the complaint was field, on 9th
    August, 1999. Hence this appeal.

      

    The appellant appeared in person
    before us in the appeal and Court that
    on account of his disabilities and
    handicap, the appellant was not in a
    position to properly assist the Court.
    We therefore, requested Ms. Indira
    Jaising, learned Senior Counsel who
    was present in Court, to appear as
    animus curiae, which readily agreed.

      

    We have heard learned Counsels for the
    parties.

       

    The impugned order of the National
    Consumer Forum is very brief. While
    dismissing the complaint relegating
    the appellant to approach either the
    District Forum or the State
    Commission, the National Consumer
    Forum inter alia observed:

       

    “…. The complainant was drawing
    a salary of Rs. 3,000/- plus
    allowances. This is his allegation
    which is not admitted by the opposite
    party. Even if we accept this
    contention is correct and even if we
    accept that as a result of wrong
    treatment given in the hospital he has
    suffered permanent disability, the
    claim of Rs. 34 lakhs made by the
    complainant is excessive. We are of
    the view that his exaggerated claim
    has been made only for the purpose of
    invoking the jurisdiction of this
    Commission….”

      

    The National Consumer Forum, in our
    opinion, was not fair in disposing of
    the complaint of the appellant by
    styling his claim as
    “excessive” or
    “exaggerated”, after six
    years of the pendency of the
    complaint, and asking the appellant to
    move the State Commission or the
    District Forum by making “a
    realistic claim”. Whether the
    claim of the appellant was
    “realistic”,
    “exaggerated” or
    “excessive”, could only have
    been given an opportunity to prove the
    case he had set up and established his
    claim under various heads. It was not
    fair to call his claim
    “unrealistic”,
    “exaggerated” or
    “excessive” without giving
    the appellant an opportunity to
    substantiate his case.

      

    Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Amicus,
    submitted that according to the
    appellant he had suffered paralysis on
    the right side and had also become
    permanently disabled and his one
    kidney had been illegally removed. The
    appellant had on the account suffered
    pain and suffering. He had also
    undergone heavy expenditure for his
    operations, upkeep, tests, medicines,
    etc. He had lost his job. Learned
    Counsel submitted that the appellant
    should have been given an opportunity
    to substantiate his claim and the
    National Consumer Forum was not
    justified to observe that the claim
    put forward by the appellant was
    “Unrealistic”,
    exaggerated” or
    “excessive” after referring
    to the salary of the appellant only.
    According to Ms. Jaising, the National
    Consumer Forum was not right in
    scuttling an enquiry in the claim of
    the appellant, in ‘limine’ after
    keeping him waiting for six long
    years. According to her, the impugned
    order violates the spirit with which
    the Consumer Protection Act was
    enacted. Learned Counsel for the
    respondents, however, submitted that
    the claim of the appellant was
    “exaggerated” and
    “excessive” and the Forum
    rightly rejected it, without giving
    any finding on merits so as not to
    prejudice the case of the appellant
    before the District Forum or the State
    Commission..

       

    After hearing learned Counsel for the
    parties and perusing the record, we
    are constrained to say that we are not
    happy with the manner in which the
    complaint of the appellant has been
    disposed of.

       

    Consumer Protection Act is one of the
    benevolent pieces of legislation
    intended to protect a large body of
    consumers from exploitation. The Act
    provides for an alternative system of
    consumer justice by summary trial. The
    authorities under the Act exercise
    quasi-judicial powers for redressal of
    consumer disputes and it is one of the
    postulates of such a body that it
    should arrive at a conclusion based on
    reason. The necessity to provide
    reasons, however, brief in support of
    its conclusion by such a forum, is too
    obvious to be reiterated and needs no
    emphasizing. Obligation to give
    reasons not only introduces clarity
    but it also excludes, or at any rate
    minimizes, the chances of
    arbitrariness and the higher forum can
    test the correctness of those reasons.
    Unfortunately we have been able to
    find from the impugned order any
    reasons in support of the conclusion
    that the claim of the appellant is
    “unrealistic” or
    “exaggerated” or
    “excessive”. Loss of salary
    in not the sole factor, which was
    required to be taken into
    consideration. While quantifying
    damages, consumer forums are required
    to make an attempt to serve ends of
    justice so that compensation is
    awarded, in an established case, which
    not only serves the purpose of
    recompensing the individual, but which
    also at the same time, aims to bring
    about a qualitative change in the
    attitude of the service provider.
    Indeed, calculation of damages depends
    on the fact and circumstances of each
    case. No hard and fast rule can be
    laid down of universal application.
    While awarding compensation, a
    Consumer Forum has to take into
    account all relevant factors and
    assess compensation on the basis of
    accepted legal principles, on
    moderation. It is for the Consumer
    Forum to grant compensation to the
    extent it finds it reasonable, fair
    and proper in the facts and
    circumstances of a given case
    according to established judicial
    standards where the claimant is able
    to establish his charge.

      

    It is not merely the alleged harm or
    mental pain, agony or physical
    discomfort, loss of salary and
    emoluments, etc. suffered by the
    appellant which is in issue- it is
    also the quality of conduct committed
    by the respondents upon which
    attention is required to be founded in
    a case of proven negligence.

       

    It must be remembered that National
    Consumer Forum has jurisdiction,
    without pecuniary, limitations, to
    award proper compensation, even less
    than one claimed in a given case,
    depending upon the established facts
    and circumstances of that particular
    case and the evidence led by the
    parties. The District Commission and
    the State Forum, or the other hand,
    have pecuniary jurisdictional
    limitations for granting compensation
    beyond their jurisdictional limits.
    Under Section 11(1) of the Consumer
    Protection Act, 1986 the District
    Forum has jurisdiction to entertain
    complaints where the value of the
    goods or services and compensation, if
    any, claimed does not exceed Rs 5
    lakhs. Section 17(a) of the Act
    provides that State Commission shall
    have jurisdiction to entertain
    complaints where the value of goods of
    services and compensation, if any,
    claimed exceeds Rs. 5 lakhs, but does
    not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs.

      

    In view of these jurisdiction
    limitations of the District Forum and
    the State Commission, these bodies
    would not be able to award
    compensation, even if satisfied in
    given case that the complainant was
    entitled to more compensation than
    what he had clamed, beyond their
    pecuniary jurisdiction.

      

    That part, in the present case,
    complaint petition filed by the
    appellant for compensation was pending
    before the National Consumer Forum for
    six long years. The pleadings had been
    completed. The National Consumer Forum
    should have taken the complaint to its
    logical conclusion by asking the
    parties to adduce evidence and
    rendered its findings on merits. A
    mathematical calculation based only on
    the amount of salary being drawn by
    the appellant could not be the sole
    factor to be taken into consideration
    to style the claim of the appellant
    “unrealistic” or
    “exaggerated”.

        


       


 Back

  


    




 

     

    
     

What is Law     Right of Doctors     Responsibilities     Negligence     Consents     Records     Cases
       
Legislations     Medical Ethics      FAQ’s

   
    

Nephrologist
      
          

  • Shivaji Gendeo Chavan v Chief Director  Wanless Hospital & Anr
    1995 (3) CPJ 43 ( Mah SCDRC)
      
    The complainant’s 18 year old son was suffering from chronic renal failure and was advised replacement of kidney . He was admitted in hospital and dialysis was done for which a venous caheter was introduced in the right thigh and kept in situ (in the  same position in the body) as he would require frequent dialysis . But due to lack of proper dressing  and medical attention this site developed pus leading to A.V Fistula and resulting into gangrene of the right leg . In order to save the life of the patient  , the amputation of the leg was necessary . The patient died 20 days thereafter. The commission decided the case in favour of the complainant mainly on the basis of the affidavit filed by the complainant and another experienced doctor who testified in favour of the complainant.
     
    The hospital was directed to pay to the complainant Rs 2 lacs as compensation.
       

  • CHARAN SINGH v. HEALING TOUCH HOSPITAL
    III (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)
       
    Medical Negligence : Paralysis on Right Side, Permanent Disablement, illegal Removal of One Kidney : Jursdiction : Compensation : Claim not “unrealistic”, “Exaggerated” or “Excessive” – Appellant was operated upon for removal of “Stone from Urethra” in respondent No 1 hospital- Certain Complications arose on account of negligence of spinal anesthesia and performing operation – Appellant paralysed on right hand side of his body – No improvement despite medicines – He also started passing blood along with urine- Advised to undergo another operation- Paralytic condition continued – His left kidney removed when he was in drowsy state - Appellant claimed Rs 34 lakhs by way of compensation from respondents - National Consumer Forum was not fair in disposing to complaint by styling his claim as “excessive” or “exaggerated” after six years of pendency of complaint – No opportunity given to appellant to substantiate his case- Obligation to give reasons not only introduces clarity but it also excludes or minimizes chances of arbitrariness and higher Forum can test correctness of those reasons – National Consumer Forum has Jurisdiction without pecuniary limitations, to award proper compensation, even less than one claimed in a given case- Complaint petition filled by appellant for compensation pending before National Consumer Forum for six long years - Pleadings completed – Appellant condemned unheard after waiting for six years.
      
    – Impugned order of National Consumer Forum set aside – Complaint remanded to National Consumer Forum for disposal in accordance with law - Consumer protection Act, !986 - Section 23
      
    Dr. A. S. Anand, CJI. This appeal under 23 Section of the Consumer Protection Act, is directed against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Comission, New Delhi (hereinafter the “National Consumer Forum”) dated 9th August, 1999 dismissing a complaint field by the appellant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but granting liberty to appellant to ” make a realistic claim” and move the State Commission or District Forum, as the case may be in accordance with law. The National Consumer Forum further directed that time spent before, it should be taken into account for purpose of computing period of limitation by the appropriate forum where the appellant moves his complaint.
      
    With a view to dispose of this appeal, we would refer only to minimal relevant facts as emerge from the record before us.
      
    In 1993, according to the appellant, he went to the Healing Touch Hospital, respondent No 1. for treatment of stomach ache and burning sensation while passing urine. He was examined by respondent No. 2, Dr. A.J.S. Juneja, who admitted him in respondent No 1 hospital on 12.1.1993 for an operation for removal of “stone from the urethra”. At the time of operation, it was respondent No. 1, Dr Sunil Seth, who administered spinal anesthesia to the appellant. Operation was performed. Certain complications, according to the appellant, arose on a account of negligence of respondent No. 1 hospital and its team of doctors, both in the administration of spinal anaesthesia and performing the operation. According to the appellant, he was paralysed on the right hand side of his body. He complained and was prescribed some medicines and discharged from the hospital. Despite taking the prescribed some medicines, there was no improvement. He also started passing blood along with urine. On 1st February 1993, the appellant again went to respondent No. 1 hospital and met respondent No. 2, Dr. Juneja, who once again admitted him to the hospital. On 9th of February 1993, the appellant was advised to undergo another operation to stop passing of blood with urine. The appellant claims that he was taken to the operation threatre and after administering anaesthesia to him, when he in a drowsy state, respondent No 2 and 3 obtained his signatures on some papers. On 10.2.1993, after the appellant regained consciousness, respondent No 2 and 3 told him that he would be discharged from the hospital within a couple of days. The right side of his body was, however, still paralytic and he complained about it to the doctors at the hospital. According to the appellant, on 18.2.1993, he was discharged from respondent No. 1 hospital in the same paralytic condition. He was prescribed some medicines, which he kept on taking. Since, paralytic condition continued, the appellant went back to respondent No. 1 hospital where respondent No. 2 asked him to go away. Appellant claims that he thereafter went to Medical Diagnostic Center, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. On examination of his discharge slip and after undertaking certain other tests, the appellant was told by the Diagnostic Center, that his left kidney had been removed. The appellant was shocked to hear this and went back to respondent No. 3 in the hospital, who told him to meet respondent No. 2 and 4. He asked them how them how they has removed his left kidney during the second operation without his knowledge or consent. No body was willing to talk to him in the hospital and he was made to go from one doctor to another. Finally, he was turned away from the hospital without providing any explanation. According to the appellant, as a result of the negligence of doctors at respondent No 1. Hospital, he has to use crutches. His kidney has also been ‘illegally’ removed. He states that, as a result, he also lost his job with M/s. Durga Lakshmi Builders where he was serving prior to his operation. He states that, he had to spend a fortune for paying the exorbitant bills of the doctors and the hospital besides medicines, tests and or his upkeep. The appellant, thereupon, filed a complaint in the National Consumer Forum and claimed Rs. 34 lakhs by way of compensation from the respondents in 1993 on various grounds, under different heads.
       
    The respondents were put to notice. They filed their counter statements and replies, to which the appellant also filed his rejoinder. While the matters rested, thus, the National Consumer Forum passed the impugned order referred to above six years after the complaint was field, on 9th August, 1999. Hence this appeal.
      
    The appellant appeared in person before us in the appeal and Court that on account of his disabilities and handicap, the appellant was not in a position to properly assist the Court. We therefore, requested Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Senior Counsel who was present in Court, to appear as animus curiae, which readily agreed.
      
    We have heard learned Counsels for the parties.
       
    The impugned order of the National Consumer Forum is very brief. While dismissing the complaint relegating the appellant to approach either the District Forum or the State Commission, the National Consumer Forum inter alia observed:
       
    “…. The complainant was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,000/- plus allowances. This is his allegation which is not admitted by the opposite party. Even if we accept this contention is correct and even if we accept that as a result of wrong treatment given in the hospital he has suffered permanent disability, the claim of Rs. 34 lakhs made by the complainant is excessive. We are of the view that his exaggerated claim has been made only for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission….”
      
    The National Consumer Forum, in our opinion, was not fair in disposing of the complaint of the appellant by styling his claim as “excessive” or “exaggerated”, after six years of the pendency of the complaint, and asking the appellant to move the State Commission or the District Forum by making “a realistic claim”. Whether the claim of the appellant was “realistic”, “exaggerated” or “excessive”, could only have been given an opportunity to prove the case he had set up and established his claim under various heads. It was not fair to call his claim “unrealistic”, “exaggerated” or “excessive” without giving the appellant an opportunity to substantiate his case.
      
    Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Amicus, submitted that according to the appellant he had suffered paralysis on the right side and had also become permanently disabled and his one kidney had been illegally removed. The appellant had on the account suffered pain and suffering. He had also undergone heavy expenditure for his operations, upkeep, tests, medicines, etc. He had lost his job. Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to substantiate his claim and the National Consumer Forum was not justified to observe that the claim put forward by the appellant was “Unrealistic”, exaggerated” or “excessive” after referring to the salary of the appellant only. According to Ms. Jaising, the National Consumer Forum was not right in scuttling an enquiry in the claim of the appellant, in ‘limine’ after keeping him waiting for six long years. According to her, the impugned order violates the spirit with which the Consumer Protection Act was enacted. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the claim of the appellant was “exaggerated” and “excessive” and the Forum rightly rejected it, without giving any finding on merits so as not to prejudice the case of the appellant before the District Forum or the State Commission..
       
    After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are constrained to say that we are not happy with the manner in which the complaint of the appellant has been disposed of.
       
    Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. The Act provides for an alternative system of consumer justice by summary trial. The authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is one of the postulates of such a body that it should arrive at a conclusion based on reason. The necessity to provide reasons, however, brief in support of its conclusion by such a forum, is too obvious to be reiterated and needs no emphasizing. Obligation to give reasons not only introduces clarity but it also excludes, or at any rate minimizes, the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. Unfortunately we have been able to find from the impugned order any reasons in support of the conclusion that the claim of the appellant is “unrealistic” or “exaggerated” or “excessive”. Loss of salary in not the sole factor, which was required to be taken into consideration. While quantifying damages, consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the fact and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down of universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.
      
    It is not merely the alleged harm or mental pain, agony or physical discomfort, loss of salary and emoluments, etc. suffered by the appellant which is in issue- it is also the quality of conduct committed by the respondents upon which attention is required to be founded in a case of proven negligence.
       
    It must be remembered that National Consumer Forum has jurisdiction, without pecuniary, limitations, to award proper compensation, even less than one claimed in a given case, depending upon the established facts and circumstances of that particular case and the evidence led by the parties. The District Commission and the State Forum, or the other hand, have pecuniary jurisdictional limitations for granting compensation beyond their jurisdictional limits. Under Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs 5 lakhs. Section 17(a) of the Act provides that State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods of services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs. 5 lakhs, but does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs.
      
    In view of these jurisdiction limitations of the District Forum and the State Commission, these bodies would not be able to award compensation, even if satisfied in given case that the complainant was entitled to more compensation than what he had clamed, beyond their pecuniary jurisdiction.
      
    That part, in the present case, complaint petition filed by the appellant for compensation was pending before the National Consumer Forum for six long years. The pleadings had been completed. The National Consumer Forum should have taken the complaint to its logical conclusion by asking the parties to adduce evidence and rendered its findings on merits. A mathematical calculation based only on the amount of salary being drawn by the appellant could not be the sole factor to be taken into consideration to style the claim of the appellant “unrealistic” or “exaggerated”.
        

       

 Back
  

    

 

By |2022-07-20T16:43:46+00:00July 20, 2022|Uncategorized|Comments Off on Patient’s Favour / Nephrologist

About the Author: