Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Primus Super Specialty Hospital, Unit ... vs Pk Morgan India Pvt Ltd & Ors on 4 June, 2021

Author: Najmi Waziri

Bench: Najmi Waziri

                                                          KAMLESH KUMAR

                                                          05.06.2021 15:38

$~2
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CONT.CAS(C) 307/2021 & CM APPL. 13581/2021
       PRIMUS SUPER SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, UNIT OF DELHI
       HOSPITAL SOCIETY                           ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Mr. Kapil
                                       Midha and Ms. Pritika Juneja,
                                       Advocates.
                          versus

       PK MORGAN INDIA PVT LTD & ORS.                         ..... Respondents
                          Through:     Mr. Santhosh Krishnan and Ms.
                                       Sonam Anand, Advocates for R-1 &
                                       R-2.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
                    ORDER

% 04.06.2021 The hearing was conducted through video conferencing. CM APPL. 17831/2021(for directions)

1. The learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that the previous orders have been duly complied with and the machine has been repaired.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in terms of the service report dated 03.06.2021, the machine has not been restored to full functionality, inasmuch as MIP/MEP programme needs to be configured. However, the final report states that 'the system is working okay'.

3. Due to their difficult personal circumstances, as noted in the previous order, the respondents are handicapped for assisting the petitioner any further.

4. In view of the above, there is no deliberate breach of the Court's orders hence no contempt is made out.

5. The learned counsel for the aforesaid respondents submits that according to initial examination of the machine, it appears that the MIP and MEP tests have not been carried out on the machine for the past almost four years. Let the petitioner file a report as to whether they have conducted any of such tests.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner insists that the MEP programme be configured as noted by the senior physio- therapist of the hospital.

7. In the prevailing circumstances, it would be a practical solution that technical advice be provided to the petitioner by the respondents through a video interaction, so that the person handling the machine in the hospital can endeavour to programme it as advised. If, for some reason, it programming requires a physical visit, the aforesaid respondents would endeavour to give the coordinates of some other technician in this regard.

8. Let the machine Service Report dated 03.06.2021 be placed on record by the petitioner, before the next date.

9. At joint request, list on 12.07.2021.

10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J JUNE 4, 2021 RW