Case nº Revision Petition No. 3250 Of 2015, (Against the Order dated 18/08/2015 in Appeal No. 84/2011 of the State Commission Rajasthan) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 24, 2016 (case A.K. Sarkar Vs Sampat Kumar)

JudgeFor Appellant: Ms. Anushree Kapadia, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Mrinmay Bhattmewara, Advocate
PresidentMr. Ajit Bharihoke,Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar,Member
Resolution DateNovember 24, 2016
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


  1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan dated 18-08-2015 in First Appeal No.84 of 2011 vide which the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner-opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Udaipur allowing the consumer complaint and directing the petitioner to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation for permanent disability caused to the child besides litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. The District Forum further directed that the amount of compensation and cost be paid within one month failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

  2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent-complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging that on 19-08-2004, the index and ring fingers of the right hand his son came under the domestic flour mill. Complainant along with his cousin, Mr. Prakash Chand, took the child, Sampat Kumar to the local Community Health Centre, Bhinder for treatment. No doctor was available at the Community Health Centre. Therefore, the complainant took his son to Sharma Hospital run by the petitioner-Dr. A.K. Sarkar. The petitioner-opposite party assured that he would treat the child and the child would recover soon. The petitioner, thereafter, gave injections to the child and amputated his aforesaid two fingers. Case of the complainant is that the amputation was done without seeking consent from the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. An FIR was also registered on the complaint of the respondent-complainant under Sections 420, 259 and 338 of IPC wherein it was alleged that the petitioner, Dr. A. K. Sarkar was running a hospital without proper qualification to work as a medical practitioner.

  3. The petitioner-opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the complaint. It was denied that the petitioner amputated the fingers of the son of the complainant. It was also denied that the petitioner gave any treatment for consideration to the child. According to the petitioner on seeing the condition of the child he refused to treat him but on the insistence of the complainant and the accompanying persons he gave first aid in the form of applying bandage to the child.

  4. The District Forum, Udaipur on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner as under:

    Resultantly the case is decided and the claim of the plaintiff against the opposite party is allowed and it is directed that opposite...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT