State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Gyan Kumar vs Ramji Lal Sharma on 29 November, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/905/2022 ( Date of Filing : 06 Sep 2022 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 05/08/2022 in Case No. Complaint Case No. C/2010/113 of District Aligarh) 1. Dr. Gyan Kumar (M.S. Ortho Surgeon) Anandi Nursig Home 13/24 Navelti Cinema Aligarh ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Ramji Lal Sharma S/o Sri Shyram Dist. Hathras ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PRESIDENT PRESENT: Dated : 29 Nov 2023 Final Order / Judgement
ORAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW APPEAL NO. 913 OF 2022 (Against the judgment/order dated 05-08-2022 in Complaint No. 113/2010 of the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh Dr. Ashok Kumar Ashok Pathology Clinic Gandhi Park Chauraha Near Akash Deep Hotel Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh.
... Appellant Versus Ramji Lal Sharma, S/o Sri Siyaram R/o Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav Nagla Shish Ghar Kasgganj Road, Sikandra Rao District Hathras Km. Priti Sharma, D/o Ramji Lal Sharma R/o Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav Nagla Shish Ghar Kasgganj Road, Sikandra Rao District Hathras Dr. Gyan Kumar (M.S. Ortho Surgeon) Annandi Nursing Home Situated at 13/24, Navalti Cinema Ke Samne Shahkamal Road, Aligarh.
04.Blood Bank Incharge by C.M.S. District Malikhan Singh Hospital Rasalganj, Aligarh.
...Respondents APPEAL NO. 905 OF 2022 (Against the judgment/order dated 05-08-2022 in Complaint No. 113/2010 of the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh Dr. Gyan Kumar (M.S. Ortho Surgeon) Annandi Nursing Home Situated at 13/24, Navalti Cinema Ke Samne Shahkamal Road, Aligarh.
...Appellant Versus :2:
01.Ramji Lal Sharma, S/o Sri Siyaram R/o Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav Nagla Shish Ghar, Kasgganj Road Sikandra Rao, District Hathras
02.Km. Priti Sharma, D/o Ramji Lal Sharma R/o Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav Nagla Shish Ghar Kasgganj Road, Sikandra Rao District Hathras
03.Dr. Ashok Kumar Ashok Pathology Clinic Gandhi Park Chauraha Near Akash Deep Hotel Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh
04.Blood Bank Incharge by C.M.S. District Malikhan Singh Hospital Rasalganj, Aligarh.
...Respondents AND APPEAL NO. 897 OF 2022 (Against the judgment/order dated 05-08-2022 in Complaint No. 113/2010 of the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh Blood Bank Incharge by C.M.S. District Malikhan Singh Hospital Rasalganj, Aligarh ...Appellant Versus
01.Ramji Lal Sharma, S/o Sri Siyaram R/o Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav Nagla Shish Ghar Kasgganj Road, Sikandra Rao District Hathras
02.Km. Priti Sharma, D/o Ramji Lal Sharma R/o Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav Nagla Shish Ghar Kasgganj Road, Sikandra Rao District Hathras
03.Dr. Ashok Kumar Ashok Pathology Clinic Gandhi Park Chauraha Near Akash Deep Hotel Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh :3:
04. Dr. Gyan Kumar (M.S. Ortho Surgeon) Annandi Nursing Home Situated at 13/24, Navalti Cinema Ke Samne Shahkamal Road, Aligarh.
...Respondents BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT For Appellant Dr. Ashok Kumar : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, Advocate.
For Appellant Dr. Gyan Kumar : None appeared.
For Appellant/Blood Bank : Mr. O P Duvel, Advocate Incharge For Respondents/Complainants : Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate Dated : 29-11-2023 JUDGMENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
These three appeals have been filed under Section-41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the same judgment and order dated 05-08-2022 passed by District Consumer Commission, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 113/2010 Ramji Lal Sharma and another V/s Dr. Ashok Kumar and others, as such all these appeals are being decided by a common judgment.
All these appeals having arisen out of the common facts are taken up together for decision.
Appeal No. 913/2022 has been filed by Dr. Ashok Kumar who is the opposite party No.01 in complaint.
Appeal No. 905/2022 has been preferred by Dr. Gyan Kumar who is opposite party no.02 in complaint.
Appeal No. 897/2022 has been filed by Blood Bank Incharge, Through C.M.S. Malkhan Singh Rajkiya District Hospital, Aligarh who is opposite party No.03 in complaint.:4:
Vide impugned judgment and order, the District Consumer Commission has allowed complaint and has passed the following order:-
"O.P. No. 01, 02, and the then incharge Blood Bank (OP No.03) are directed to pay jointly to the complainant the compensation Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) with pendent lite and future interest at the rate 9% per annum and litigation expenses Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand). Ops are also directed to pay jointly the amount Rs.45,00,000/- (Forty Five Lakh), as punitive damages to deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund Account.'' Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission, the opposite parties No. 01, 02 and 03 have filed these three separate appeals.
In Appeal No. 913/2022 Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant appeared and on behalf of respondents No.01 and 02 Sri Nand Kumar holding brief of Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma appeared and Sri O P Duvel, learned Counsel for the respondent No.04 appeared. None appeared for the respondent No.03.
None appeared for the appellant in Appeal No. 905/2022. On behalf of respondents No.01 and 02 Sri Nand Kumar holding brief of Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel and on behalf of respondents No.03 and 04 Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma and Sri O P Duvel, learned Counsels appeared.
In Appeal No. 897/2022 Sri O P Duvel, learned Counsel for the appellant appeared and on behalf of respondents No.01 and 02 Sri Nand Kumar holding brief of Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma appeared and Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent No.03 appeared. None appeared for the respondent No.04.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment and order as well as records of the case.:5:
Facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant has filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to reimburse to the complainant for the expenses incurred in treatment of his daughter and compensation for physical and mental suffering and litigation expenses.
The complainant's daughter Km. Priti Sharma had fallen down on 26-02-2009 from the roof and got admitted on 26-02-2009 in the clinic of Opposite Party No.02, Dr. Gyan Kumar M.S. (Ortho) Senior Ortho Surgeon Nandi Nursisng Homes G. T. Road, Aligarh. Km. Priti Sharma received injury in her body and fracture in her right leg. Dr. Gyan Kumar advised for operation of the leg of Km. Priti Sharma which was to be operated on 28-02-2009. It was also advised that blood would be required. Sample/slide of the blood of Km. Priti Sharma was sent for test to the clinic of the Opposite Party No.01 where the fees for blood test was paid. Opposite Party No.01 submitted the blood report on26-02-2009 indicating the blood group AB O-AB positive. On the basis of said blood report dated 26-02-2009, the blood of the group AB positive as mentioned in the report was purchased on 27-02-2009 from blood bank Malikhan Singh Hospital.
It has been further alleged by the complainant in complaint that on 28-02-2009 Dr. Gyan Kumar perform operation on Km. Priti Sharma and supplied the blood to her body which was purchased as per report of the blood group AB positive which resulted reaction in the body of Km. Priti Sharma whereby she started vomiting and felt fullness in the stomach. The pulse rate also lowered down and urination blocked. Km. Priti Sharma had been suffered seriously and could not recover in spite of under going treatment. As per opinion of the doctor her kidney had failed and started to cease functioning. The doctor advised for re-examination of the blood sample on 02-03-2009 and on re-examination of blood sample the early report dated was confirmed and the report of blood group AB O-AB+ was given. Thereafter the doctor on 02-03-2009 the blood was got tested by :6: another Pathology Lab or Dr. Rajendra Kumar who tested the blood and submitted the report of the blood group being B+ which was different from the earlier report AB positive. Km. Priti Sharma could not have any improvement in the health despite of change in the blood group and she was referred to Pushpanjali Hospital, Agra where she remained under the treatment of Dr. Umesh Chandra Arora, who got the blood tested by the Scientific pathology and Dr. Lahari Pathology center on 03-03-2009 where the report of blood group AB-O-B positive was submitted. Km. Priti Sharma was under treatment there till 09-03-2009 on account of supplying the blood to her body on the basis of wrong blood group. Km. Priti Sharma suffered pain and suffering on account of negligence in carrying out the test of the blood group.
The complainant has prayed for the following relief in his complaint.
"(अ) यह कि प्रार्थी को विपक्षी की घोर लापरवाही से वादी की पुत्री खून जांच रिपोर्ट गलत देने के कारण प्रार्थी की पुत्री को हुई शारीरिक व मानसिक क्षति व आर्थिक क्षति की बावत मुवलिग इलाज में खर्चा करीब 75,000/- रूपये सम्मलित करते हुये 1,00,000/- (एक लाख रू0) मुआवजा विपक्षी से दिलवाया जावे।
(ब) यह कि वाद व्यय, नोटिस व्यय, वकील फीस वादी को विपक्षी से दिलाया जावे।
(स) यह कि अन्य अनुतोष जिसे माननीय न्यायालय प्रार्थी/वादी के पक्ष में उचित व ठीक समझे वह भी वादी को विपक्षी से दिलाया जावे।"
The opposite party No.01 Dr. Ashok Kumar, Ashok Pathology Clinic has contested the case before the learned District Consumer Commission and filed his written statement and denied the allegations made in the complaint.
It has been stated by the opposite party No.01 that the complainant had submitted blood sample referred by Dr. Gyan Kumar for testing blood group and blood group was carefully :7: checked and gave report AB Rh positive. It is wrong to say that the complainant believing said blood group report purchased blood from blood bank Malikhan Singh Hospital, Aligarh which was supplied to her by doctor and reacted but on the other hand no blood bank is empowered to supply blood bottle on the basis of blood report but every blood bank officer before supplying blood bottle do their blood group test personally in his lab and their after cross matching of recipients blood sample with donor blood with standard techniques and thereafter getting satisfied from blood group and cross matching, issue blood bottle. The procedure is mandatory in nature before supply of blood which is laid down in transfusion medicine technical manual. The allegation that the complainant purchased the blood bottle from blood bank of M S Hospital believing the blood group testing report of opposite party are wrong and against the mandatory processor. The doctor of blood bank of M S Hospital would have checked blood group and cross matching according to manual and thereafter supplied the blood. The opposite party has tested sample of blood and submitted report after proper testing. The opposite party No.01 has not committed any fault or negligence and not responsible for any reaction.
The opposite party No.02 Dr. Gyan Kumar (M.S. Ortho.) Surgeon has also contested the case before the learned District Consumer Commission and filed his written statement and has stated that complainant's daughter was thoroughly examined clinically and she was admitted in nursing home and operation was suggested for which blood was required. The blood sample of the patient was taken in clean and dry test tube and then was given to attender for investigation. After taking precaution as per medical norms blood was transfused to the patient but transfusion of blood was stopped when the patient made complaint and then emergency medication was done. Blood sample of patient was sent for reinvestigation. After receiving reinvestigation report from Opposite Party No.01 again the same blood sample which was managed during the same period :8: sample was sent to another pathology namely Kumar Pathology for confirmation. As the condition of the patient was deteriorating the patient was sent Agra for pathological and treatment. There is no deficiency in service.
The opposite party No.03, Blood Bank, District Malikhan Singh Hospital has contested the case before the learned District Consumer Commission and filed its written statement with the preliminary objection and denied the allegations made in the complaint but the District Consumer Commission has not taken into consideration the written statement because it has been filed after expiry of 90 days as the statutory period of limitation for filing the written statement.
It is stated by the opposite party No.03 that the blood bank Malikahn Singh Hospital is the government organization from where blood is supplied as per standard norms and all the function are discharged by the opposite party in accordance with transfusion medicine technical manual. In the blood bank the blood group of the sample was determined as AB-O group and Rh group was determined as per technical manual. Thereafter serum of the sample was tallied with RBC (Major Cross Match) and then RBC of the sample were tallied with the serum of the sample (minor Cross Match). In the blood bank the sample received from the nursing home of Dr. Gyan Prakash. The blood group was determined as per standard norms and the blood group was mentioned blood sample was collected at the nursing home of Dr. Gyan Prakash which was brought by the attendant of the patient. Blood sample is not collecting at the blood bank and the doctor who sends the sample is liable for the sample and he is also liable to maintain the blood till it is supplied to the body of the patient as per standard norms and time limit.
It has also been submitted that the blood was supplied free and without any charge. Opposite Party No.03 is the government :9: organization and the service rendered by the opposite party No.03 under the Act.
After having considered the pleadings of parties as well as materials available on record the District Consumer Commission is of the view that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and has passed order accordingly as mentioned above.
Learned Counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 913/2022 has argued that the impugned judgment and order is an illegal judgment and has been passed without proper application of mind.
It is argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no expert opinion regarding alleged deficiency in service and negligence. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is liable to be set aside.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant Ramji Lal Sharma is not consumer of appellant as per the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because no services had been given to him and the complaint case should have been dismissed out rightly.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that it is clear that complainant has filed the complaint case on the basis of frivolous, baseless and misleading facts and ground against appellant which were not tenable in the eyes of law therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Consumer Commission has failed to pass appropriate order as per prayer of the complaint case. The complainant has not prayed for punitive damages in his complaint while the learned District Consumer Commission has directed the complainant to deposit huge sum of Rs.45,00,000/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund Account.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complaint has been filed by the complainant only for harassing and :10: to gain undue money from the appellant. The learned District Consumer Commission has not properly appreciated the correct evidence which are on record and judgment was passed which is arbitrary in nature. The complainant has no right to file any complaint against the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment allowing the complaint against the appellant is wholly not maintainable is liable to be set aside.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious and hence it is liable to be dismissed at the very outset as the appellant/opposite party No.01 had maliciously been made a part to the complaint and the complainant has filed the complaint with the sole intention of causing unnecessary duress and harm to the reputation and goodwill of the appellant/opposite party No.1.
Learned Counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 905/2022 has taken the grounds in appeal that the impugned judgment and order is an illegal judgment and has been passed without proper application of mind.
It has been stated in the grounds of appeal that the appellant had given the treatment to the complainant with due care and standard norms. The appellant/opposite party No.02 did not commit any deficiency in service nor committed any negligence and it has also not been proved that any kind of deficiency in service had been committed by the appellant.
It has further been stated in the grounds of appellant by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no expert opinion regarding alleged deficiency in service and negligence. The impugned judgment and order dated 05-08-2022 is liable to be set aside.
It is stated in the grounds of appeal that complainant has no grievance with the appellant. The patient Km. Preeti Sharma had approached the appellant. The patient was clinically examined and on seeing the condition of her she was admitted in Nursing Home :11: on 26-02-2009. After careful examination of the patient it was informed by the appellant that one bottle of blood will be required in operation. The complainant has provided one bottle blood to the appellant for transfusion and the blood was transfused as per transfusion medical norms/act and after taking all the necessary precautions. At the time of transfusing the blood the patient made some complaint and thereafter transfusion of blood was immediately stopped. Despite transfusion of blood the condition of patient was not improving, the physician Dr. R K Varsney, MD (Med.) and Dr. Deepak Varshney MD (Med.) were called. The blood sample of the patient was again sent to the opposite party No.01 Dr. Ashok Kumar through patient's attendant for reinvestigation of blood report and again the report was same.
After taking all the necessary precautions blood sample was again sent to another pathology i.e. Kumar Pathology and upon receiving Kumar Pathology report, the patient was referred to Higher Medical Center, Agra on the request of patient and her attendants for pathological tests and treatment.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant because the report was given by opposite party No.01 Dr. Ashok Kumar and blood was provided by complainant himself which was being transfused and as soon as patient made complaint transfusion of blood was stopped and thereafter on the request of patient and her attendants she was referred to Higher Center Agra for pathological tests and treatment. There is no deficiency on the part of the appellant and the deficiency in service has not been proved by the complainant. Since the deficiency in service had not been proved against the appellant the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.
It has been further stated in the ground of appeal that the appellant did the operation of patient and transfused blood which was stopped after a while when paint had made some complaint but in the entire complaint the complainant did not state anywhere :12: that there is deficiency in service on the part of appellant regarding operation. The appellant had transfused the blood as per report given by respondent no.1 which was purchased by the complainant himself from Blood Bank Malkhan Singh Hospital and thereafter referred to Higher Hospital, Agra on the request of complainant and patient and after coming from Agra the treatment of patient was continued in the hospital of appellant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of appellant and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.
It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant in ground of appeal that the complainant Ramji Lal Sharma is not consumer of appellant as per the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because no services had been given to him and the complaint case should have been dismissed out rightly.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has stated in the grounds of appeal that it is clear that complainant has filed the complaint case on the basis of frivolous, baseless and misleading facts and ground against appellant which were not tenable in the eyes of law therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has further stated in the grounds of appeal that nowhere in the entire complaint the complainant had stated that appellant had committed deficiency in service in conducting operation and the learned District Consumer Commission has wrongly held the appellant liable for carrying out operation without reasonable risk. The complainants had no grievance with operation nor the patient had suffered from operation. The problem arose because of transfusion of blood as per report but as soon as the patient made complaint regarding some problem transfusion of blood was immediately stopped and thereafter on their request patient was referred to higher Hospital, Agra. The impugned order is liable to be set aside.
:13:It has been further stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the grounds of appeal that the learned District Consumer Commission cannot go beyond the prayer while passing the order but while passing the order the learned District Consumer Commission travelled beyond the prayers sought for and illegally awarded Rs.45,00.000/- which is legally wrong and unjustified and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Learned Counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 897/2022 has argued that the impugned judgment and order is an illegal judgment and has been passed without proper application of mind.
It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.03 that the District Consumer Commission has passed the impugned order without appreciating the evidence produced by the appellant.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that there is no deficiency on the part of the appellant and the deficiency in service has not been proved by the complainant. Since the deficiency in service had not been proved against the appellant the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.
It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no expert opinion regarding alleged deficiency in service and negligence. The impugned judgment and order dated 05-08-2022 is liable to be set aside.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.3 that the blood bank Malikahn Singh Hospital is the government organization from where blood is supplied as per standard norms and all the function are discharged by the opposite party in accordance with transfusion medicine technical manual. In the blood bank the blood group of the sample was determined as AB-O group and Rh group was determined as per technical manual. Thereafter serum of the sample was tallied with RBC (Major Cross Match) and then RBC of the sample were tallied :14: with the serum of the sample (minor Cross Match). In the blood bank the sample received from the nursing home of Dr. Gyan Prakash. The blood group was determined as per standard norms and the blood group was mentioned blood sample was collected at the nursing home of Dr. Gyan Prakash which was brought by the attendant of the patient. Blood sample is not collecting at the blood bank and the doctor who sends the sample is liable for the sample and he is also liable to maintain the blood till it is supplied to the body of the patient as per standard norms and time limit.
It has also been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the blood was supplied free and without any charge. The appellant/Opposite Party No.03 is the government organization and the service rendered by the opposite party No.03 under the Act.
It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that it is clear that complainant has filed the complaint case on the basis of frivolous, baseless and misleading facts and ground against appellant which were not tenable in the eyes of law therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
I have also perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Aligarh.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and evidence and submission of learned Counsel for the respective parties I find force in the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.01 Dr. Ashok Kumar in Appeal No. 913/2022 that the learned District Consumer Commission has travelled beyond the prayers sought for and awarded huge sum of Rs.45,00,000/- which is unjustified and it should be reduced to Rs.50,000/-. The interest at the rate of 9% awarded by learned District Consumer Commission on Rs.1,00,000/- is also reduced to at the rate of 06% per annum and Rs.25,000/-
:15:litigation expenses awarded by learned District Consumer Commission is confirmed.
As regards the finding recorded by the learned District Consumer Commission in its judgment and order that the opposite parties No.02 and 03 have also committed deficiency in service, I am of the opinion that there is no concrete evidence available on record from which it can be proved that the opposite parties No. 02 and 03 have committed any deficiency in service. The judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission against the opposite parties No.02 and 03 is not based on proper evidence on record and the same is liable to be quashed.
I also find force in the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants in Appeal Nos. 905/2022 and 897/2022 that the appellants have committed no deficiency in service and the District Consumer Commission has wrongly allowed the complaint against the appellants/opposite parties No.02 and 03.
In view of above Appeal No. 913/2022 filed by Dr. Ashok Kumar is liable to be allowed in part and the judgment and order is liable to be modified to that extent that Opposite Party No. 01 Dr. Ashok Kumar is directed to pay to the complainant the compensation Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with pendent lite and future interest at the rate 06% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till payment within two months else the liability of interest will be at the rate of 9% per annum and litigation expenses Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only). The opposite party No.01 Dr. Ashok Kumar is also directed to pay the amount Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), as punitive damages to deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund Account. The opposite parties No. 02 and 03 are exonerated from the liability.
The Appeal No. 905/2022 filed by appellant/opposite party No.02 Dr. Gyan Kumar is liable to be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission is liable to be set :16: aside against the opposite party No. 02 Dr. Gyan Kumar and complaint against opposite party No.02 is dismissed.
The Appeal No. 897/2022 filed by appellant/opposite party No.03 Blood Bank Incharge through C.M.S. Malkhan Singh Rajkiya Zila Chikitshalaya is liable to be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission is liable to be set aside against the opposite party No. 03 and complaint against opposite party No.03 is dismissed.
ORDER Appeal No. 913/2022 filed by Dr. Ashok Kumar is allowed in part and the judgment and order is modified to that extent that appellant/Opposite Party No. 01 Dr. Ashok Kumar is directed to pay to the complainant the compensation Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with pendent lite and future interest at the rate 06% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till payment within two months else the liability of interest will be at the rate of 9% per annum and litigation expenses Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only). The appellant/opposite party No.01 Dr. Ashok Kumar is also directed to pay the amount Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), as punitive damages to deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund Account. The opposite parties No. 02 and 03 are exonerated from the liability.
The Appeal No. 905/2022 filed by appellant/opposite party No.02 Dr. Gyan Kumar is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission is set aside against the appellant/opposite party No. 02 Dr. Gyan Kumar and complaint against opposite party No.02 is dismissed.
The Appeal No. 897/2022 filed by appellant/opposite party No.03 Blood Bank Incharge through C.M.S. Malkhan Singh Rajkiya Zila Chikitshalaya is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission is set aside against the opposite party No. 03 and complaint against opposite party No.03 is dismissed.
:17:Parties shall bear their own costs.
The amount deposited if any by the appellant under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in Appeal No. 913/2022 shall be remitted to the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh alongwith interest accrued, if any, in accordance with law.
The amount deposited if any by the appellants under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in Appeal Nos. 905/2022 and 897/2022 shall be refunded to the appellant alongwith interest accrued, if any, in accordance with law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
This judgment shall be placed on the record of Appeal No. 913 of 2022 with its copy to be laid on the record of other Appeal Nos. 905 of 2022 and 897 of 2022.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR ) PRESIDENT pnt [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR] PRESIDENT