State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Mrs. Daizy Sondhi vs Smt. Tapasya on 30 August, 2024
First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024
78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited
Versus
Smt. Tapasya and another
AND
First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024
85 of 2011 Versus
Smt. Tapasya and another
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
Date of Admission: 04.05.2011
Date of Final Hearing: 05.08.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 78 / 2011
Senior Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited
Ranipur More, Haridwar through
Chief Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited
8/6-7, Astley Hall, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. R.K. Garg, Advocate)
...... Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Tapasya W/o Sh. Hitesh Sharma
R/o Laxmi Colour Lab
Upper Road, Haridwar
Tehsil and District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Sudhir Vashisth)
2. Dr. Daizy Sondhi
Sondhi Nursing Home, Arya Nagar
Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Parveen Kumar)
...... Respondents
AND
Date of Admission: 09.05.2011
Date of Final Hearing: 05.08.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 85 / 2011
Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi
C/o Sondhi Nursing Home, Arya Nagar
Jwalapur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand
(Through: Sh. Bhavesh Chandnani, Advocate along with
Sh. Parveen Kumar, Advocate)
...... Appellant
Versus
1
First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024
78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited
Versus
Smt. Tapasya and another
AND
First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024
85 of 2011 Versus
Smt. Tapasya and another
1. Smt. Tapasya W/o Sh. Hitesh Sharma
R/o Laxmi Colour Lab
Upper Road, Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Sudhir Vashisth)
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited
Divisional Office, Ranipur More
Haridwar through Divisional Manager
The New India Assurance Company Limited
8/6-7, Astley Hall, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. R.K. Garg, Advocate)
...... Respondents
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
Both these appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2011 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 293 of 2008, styled as Smt. Tapasya Vs. Dr. Daizy Sondhi and another, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed. The impugned judgment and order was passed by the two Members of the District Commission, whereas learned President of the District Commission per his even dated judgment and order, has dismissed the consumer complaint. Both the Member of the District Commission, while allowing the consumer complaint, has directed the opposite parties to the consumer complaint, i.e., Dr. Daizy Sondhi and The New India Assurance Company Limited, who are appellants before us in these two appeals, to pay compensation 2 First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another of Rs. 17,60,000/- to the complainant, who is respondent No. 1 in the instant appeals. For the sake of convenience, First Appeal No. 85 of 2011; Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi Vs. Smt. Tapasya and another, is taken as a leading appeal, for the disposal of these appeals. Since both the above-mentioned appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order, hence both are decided together by this common judgment.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that respondent No. 1
- complainant, i.e., Smt. Tapasya was under the treatment of the appellant - opposite party No. 1, i.e., Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy since 28.09.2007 in connection with her pregnancy. On completion of term of pregnancy, the appellant - doctor had called the complainant on 09.07.2008 for check-up and delivery by giving artificial pain. On 09.07.2008 at about 9:00 a.m., the complainant along with her husband and mother-in-law visited the nursing home of the appellant. After check-up of the complainant, the appellant told that the heartbeat of the baby in the womb is normal and she is administering injection for labour pain. The appellant asked the complainant's husband to bring cerviprime injection from the market and administered the said injection in the uterus of the complainant, whereas according to the opinion of medical professionals, the said injection is to be administered along with glucose. On account of administration of the aforesaid injection, the complainant's condition got deteriorated. It was also alleged that instead of taking medical care of the complainant and treating her, the appellant admitted the complainant in room No. 3 of her nursing home. From 9:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m., neither the appellant, nor her staff visited the room for complainant's treatment inspite of the fact that the complainant's condition was continuously deteriorating.
3First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another The complainant's husband and mother-in-law requested the appellant that in case for saving the life of the mother and the baby, caesarian is required, the same should be conducted, but the doctor refused for the same and inspite of several requests, did not come to see the complainant. After numerous requests, the complainant's ultrasound was conducted at 4:00 p.m., whereupon it was told that the heartbeat of the baby is quite low and the appellant took the complainant to the labour room. After passage of sufficient time, when the appellant did not come out of the labour room, the concerned mother-in-law entered into the labour room and found the complainant is having excessive bleeding and the baby is no more. When the mother-in-law asked the appellant about the serious condition of the complainant, she said that on account of her negligence, the artery of the complainant has been cut, due to which the condition of the complainant is very critical and for saving her life, she should be immediately taken to Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun.
3. It was further averred that the complainant was immediately taken to Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun by her husband and mother-in-law, where she remained admitted from 09.07.2008 to 22.07.2008 under the treatment of Dr. Jaya Chaturvedi. During the period of hospitalization, around 20 bottles of blood was transfused to the complainant and for saving the complainant, on account of cutting of complainant's artery by the appellant, her uterus had to be removed and her treatment is still continuing. An amount of more than Rs. 1,00,000-/ has been spent in complainant's treatment and a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- is likely to be incurred in her further treatment. On account of death of the baby and removal of her uterus, 4 First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another the complainant's future has become dark and the entire family is under severe shock. Alleging medical negligence of the par of the appellant, consumer complaint was instituted before the District Commission, claiming an amount of Rs. 17,60,000/- under different heads. Since the nursing home of the appellant was duly insured, hence by way of amendment, The New India Assurance Company Limited was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 to the consumer complaint.
4. The treating doctor, who is the appellant in First Appeal No. 85 of 2011, filed written statement before the District Commission, pleading therein that no medical or other service charges were charged by her from the complainant and that there has not been any deficiency in service on her part. It is incorrect to say that the cerviprime injection was wrongly administered to the complainant, whereas the fact of the matter is that the said injection was administered after due consultation with the attendants of the complainant - patient and with their due consent, because when the complainant start feeling labour pain, the heartbeat of the baby was normal, but the complainant was unable to bear the labour pain. At 12:30 p.m., the attendants of the patient were told to get the delivery done through caesarian section, but the patient and her attendants asked the doctor to wait and try to go for normal delivery. After check-up at 1:30 p.m., the attendants of the patient were apprised that in case the delivery is not carried out within 1-2 hours, then they should get the delivery done through operation (caesarian section). The patient was again checked after one hour and it was found that the heartbeat of the baby had started lowering. Immediately, ultrasound was done and as per the situation, the patient & her attendants were told that even after caesarian, there are less chances of 5 First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another survival of baby and their consent, injection "SYNTOCINON Drip"
was started and at 4:00 p.m., a dead female baby was born.
5. It was also submitted that it is entirely incorrect to say that after 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., the doctor or her staff did not come to see the patient and treat her, whereas the fact is that the check-up of the patient was constantly done and the heartbeat of the baby was being listened through Doptone. At the time of delivery, after the baby came out, blood started coming out with great speed and it was noted that the cause of death of the baby was abruption of placenta at cord level, which could not be noticed in any circumstances before delivery. Episiotomy Stitch was administered to the patient, but the blood was coming from uterus off & on. When inspite of administering injection Prostodin; Syntocinon Drip and Injection Revici, the blood used to come off & on, it looked that a sinus rupture has taken place, on account whereof, the baby had suddenly died and severe PPH (Postpartum hemorrhage) had been caused to the mother. The patient was treated with due diligence and all efforts were made to save the baby. Since that day, Dr. N.K. Aggarwal, Surgeon on call, was out of station, hence taking well-being of the patient into consideration, she was referred to higher medical centre, so that by ligating internal iliac artery, uterus could be saved, for which medical services of a surgeon are required. At that time, the condition of the patient was satisfactory. The ambulance as well as the doctor were managed by the treating doctor on her own.
6. It was further pleaded that immediately after delivery, the patient was shifted to NICU of the nursing home, where child specialist & 6 First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another Neonatologist Dr. S.K. Sondhi, M.B.B.S., M.D., D.C.H., adopted all methods to revive the baby, but could not succeed. All the information was given to the complainant's husband and her relatives from time to time and no negligence was committed by the treating doctor. The treating doctor is not liable for the loss occasioned to the complainant on account of removal of her uterus. It is to be noted that bleeding from uterus after delivery of baby, is a known complication, which could be on account of several reasons. The treating done has obtained Professional Indemnity (Medical Establishments) Policy for her nursing home from The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Ranipur More, Haridwar for the period from 29.10.2007 to 28.10.2008. The complainant has not filed any expert medical opinion.
7. The insurance company, who is the appellant in First Appeal No. 78 of 2011, filed written statement before the District Commission and pleaded that unless and until negligence, error or omission is established against the treating doctor, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify. No allegations are made by the complainant against the insurance company.
8. The District Commission, after hearing the parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint in the above terms vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2011 passed by the Members of District Commission. On having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the present appeals have been set in motion. First Appeal No. 78 of 2011 has been filed by The New India Assurance Company Limited and 7 First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another whereas First Appeal No. 85 of 2011 has been preferred by Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi, the treating doctor.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We have also gone through the original record of the District Commission, which was summoned by this Commission.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the treating doctor submitted that no medical or other service charges were charged by the doctor in regard to the complainant's treatment, hence the consumer complaint was not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the reason that no consideration amount was paid by the complainant. We do not find ourselves in agreement with the said submission. The reason being that the complainant, in relation to her pregnancy, remained under the treatment of the doctor for the period from 28.09.2007 to 09.07.2008, regarding which there is no dispute, hence it can not be believed that the doctor, who is a private medical professional and not a government doctor & is running a private nursing home, was undertaking the complainant's treatment free of charge. Even otherwise, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha reported in AIR 1996 SC 550, cited by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 - complainant, free service would also be "service"
and the recipient a "consumer" under the Act. In view of this, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant before the District Commission, was fully maintainable.
8First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another
11. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant, in relation to her pregnancy, remained under the treatment of Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi w.e.f. 28.09.2007 and as per the antenatal card, the expected date of delivery was 05.07.2008. The dispute is with regard to the medical treatment given by the treating doctor to the complainant
- patient on 09.07.2008. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that on 09.07.2008, Cerviprime injection was administered by the treating doctor on the patient. Against the allegation of medical negligence leveled by the complainant upon the treating doctor, the treating doctor has stated that she repeatedly asked for get the delivery done through caesarian section, to which the patient and her attendants denied.
12. First of all, it is to be stated here that the allegation of the complainant that on 09.07.2008, after 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., neither the doctor, nor her staff visited the room for complainant's treatment, is belied from the copy of indoor admission record of the complainant (Paper Nos. 58/10 to 58/13 of the original record), which shows that after admission at 10:00 a.m. on 09.07.2008, the complainant was regularly checked at different intervals.
13. In para 1 of the consumer complaint, it has been stated that as per the opinion of medical professionals, cerviprime injection is to be administered along with glucose, which was not done and as a consequence thereof, the condition of the complainant deteriorated. The medical literature on record shows that cerviprime is used for preinduction cervical ripening and dilatation in pregnant woman at or near term with unfavourable induction features like poor Bishop Score 9 First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another and there is nothing to show that the said injection can be administered on a patient along with glucose and can not be administered directly.
14. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not made any allegation against the treating doctor in regard to her treatment before 09.07.2008 and there is also no allegation from the side of the complainant that the treating doctor was not competent enough to undertake her treatment or the treating doctor did not possess the required skill.
15. The entire case of the complainant depends upon the certificate dated 14.02.2011 (Paper No. 49 of the original record) issued by Dr. Jaya Chaturvedi, Professor & HOD, Department of Obstetrics / Gynaecology, HIMS, Swami Ram Nagar, Dehradun, which certifies that the complainant was brought to the said hospital in emergency on 09.07.2008 with severe traumatic and atonic PPH due to vulval, vaginal, cervical and broad ligament haematomas with deranged coagulation profile and required urgent surgery in which subtotal hysterectomy with bilateral internal iliac artery ligation with vulval haematoma drainage was done. The patient was managed with difficulty. She required ICU care and many blood and blood component transfusions for her operative and post-operative recovery. Her total hospital stay was till July, 2008.
16. The original record depicts that before the District Commission, an application was moved on behalf of the complainant for summoning Dr. Jaya Chaturvedi, which was allowed and the said doctor appeared before the District Commission on 23.02.2011 for the purposes of 10 First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another recording her statement. The statement of Dr. Jaya Chaturvedi is contained at Paper Nos. 52/1 to 52/3 of the original record. In her statement, the doctor has stated that traumatic PPH, which was suffered by the patient, could be a result of negligence in treatment. The said doctor has also stated that according to the condition of the patient, Syntocinon injection could be administered and on account of the said injection, the heartbeat of the baby could get low. The witness was put to cross-examination. During cross-examination by learned counsel for the treating doctor, the witness stated that tears were found, which shows negligence. The witness has also stated that the summary sheet was prepared by junior doctor and the same only bears her signatures. She has further stated that she can not tell as to why overwriting was made on the same. She also can not tell as to what were the circumstances in the nursing home of Dr. Sondhi at the time of complainant's delivery and that the complainant's case was a case of normal delivery or that of caesarian. A specific question was put to the witness that the treatment of broad ligament haematoma is removal of uterus. In reply, the witness stated that firstly, it is to be controlled by other ways, but when PPH does not stop, the upper part of uterus which contains cervix is left and the remaining part of the uterus is removed for saving the life of the patient, which was done in the instant case. The witness has further stated that there are many reasons for PPH having been caused to the patient. Thus, on the sole basis of statement of Dr. Jaya Chaturvedi, the treating doctor can not be held liable for alleged medical negligence. Rather, according to her statement, the uterus was removed for saving the life of the complainant. The entire treatment given to the patient is recorded in indoor admission record, which mentions the treatment given to the patient on 09.07.2008 at 11 First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another different times. The said indoor admission record specifically makes mention of the fact that when inspite of all efforts, the bleeding could not be controlled, the patient was referred to Jolly Grant Hospital at 4:50 p.m. under the impression that some major sinus has been ruptured. An ambulance and RMO from City Hospital were arranged by the treating doctor, but patient's attendants made their own arrangement of ambulance and took patient around 5:15 p.m.
17. In support of her defence, the treating doctor has filed an affidavit of Dr. Narendra Gulati, Dr. Gulati's Maternity Home (Paper Nos. 55/1 to 55/2 of the original record). The said doctor possesses more than 43 years' experience at PMCH, BHEL Govt. Bihar Hospital. In para 2 of this affidavit, the doctor has averred that after going through the entire treatment record and relevant documents, he is of the opinion that opposite party No. 1 treated the patient diligently, prudently and with due care & caution, as per standard medical protocol. In para 3, the deponent has stated that Dr. Daizy Sondhi had shown proper skill, care and a great diligence in treating the patient.
18. There is also an affidavit of Dr. N.K. Aggarwal, M.B.B.S., M.S. (General Suregon), which is Paper No. 59/1 of the original record, wherein he has categorically stated that he acts as Surgeon on call in every surgical emergency case of delivery at Sondhi Nursing Home and from 09.07.2008 to 11.07.2008, he was out of Haridwar. The deponent has also stated that he has seen the indoor admission record of the patient and according to patient's delivery conditions, a surgeon was required to control the bleeding and since he was not available, the treating doctor has referred the patient to higher centre.
12First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another
19. Under the present facts & circumstances coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, no case of medical negligence is made out against the treating doctor and it can safely be inferred that the complainant has not filed any expert medical evidence in support of her allegations. It is also pertinent to mention here that record does not show that against the defence so set up by the treating doctor in her written statement, any replication / rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
20. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 - complainant cited a judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Kalyani Nursing Home and others Vs. P. Chandra Mouli and others reported in (2007) 4 CPJ 341 = (2008) 1 CPR 86. In the said case, Hon'ble National Commission placed reliance upon the finding of the State Commission, which says that, "The delivery took place at around 4:30 p.m. and the patient died after 3 to 4 hours. Within this period, there is no satisfactory explanation coming forth from the R.W. 1 to control the bleeding as admittedly uterus was not contracting. She admits that around 7:00 p.m., considering the condition of the patient, she asked for matching blood, which implies that for 2 hours, there was no planning for securing matching blood. These circumstances lend support to the view that there is negligence and consequently deficiency of service. Summoning specialists at the critical hour when everything is foregone, is not acting with due care or caution, as no specialist would save the patient at that juncture". There is no such eventuality in the present case. In the case before hand, the treating doctor had immediately called the Surgeon on call, who happened to be out of 13 First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another station that day and without wasting any time, the patient was referred to higher medical centre. No negligence can be attached to the said act of the treating doctor.
21. In the case of Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq reported in (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1, Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph No. 106 as under:
"106. We, therefore, direct that whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the Consumer Fora (whether District, State or National) or by the criminal court, then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made, the Consumer Forum or the criminal court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors, specialised in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed, and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case of medical negligence, should notice be then issued to the doctor/hospital concerned. This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctors who may not be ultimately found to be negligent. We further warn the police officials not to arrest or harass doctors unless the facts clearly come within the parameters laid down in Jacob Mathew case¹, otherwise the policemen will themselves have to face legal action."
22. In the case of Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana Vs. Joginder Singh and others reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 291, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
14First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another "While it is necessary that the hospital and doctors are required to exercise sufficient care in treating the patient in all circumstances, in every case where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent. To indicate negligence, there should be material available on record or else appropriate medical evidence should be tendered. The negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which event the principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made applicable and not based on perception."
23. It is pertinent to mention here that by way of the impugned judgment and order, the Members of the District Commission had awarded the entire amount of Rs. 17,60,000/- so claimed by the complainant on the basis of surmises and conjectures, even though no medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor is established on record. Learned President of the District Commission was perfectly justified in dismissing the consumer complaint per his minority judgment and order dated 06.04.2011.
24. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the District Commission without application of mind. We are also of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the treating doctor. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is totally unjustified and the District Commission has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law and has acted with material illegality and infirmity, while passing the impugned judgment and order. Thus, 15 First Appeal No. Senior Regional Manager 30.08.2024 78 of 2011 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Tapasya and another AND First Appeal No. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi 30.08.2024 85 of 2011 Versus Smt. Tapasya and another we are inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the District Commission. Therefore, the appeals are fit to be allowed.
25. Appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2011 passed by the Members of the District Commission is set aside and consumer complaint No. 293 of 2008 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs of the appeals. The amount deposited by the appellants with this Commission in their respective appeals, be released in their favour.
26. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information. The original record of the District Commission be also remitted back forthwith.
27. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
28. A copy of this judgment be kept on the record of connected First Appeal No. 85 of 2011.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 30.08.2024 16