The opposite parties denied her admission or operation in the clinic and also refuted the removal of rusted nut and bolt by claiming that they ought to be stainless steel material for medical use.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from Tribunals, Regulatory Bodies, Commissions this month.
“Intentional exercise of a choice between the alternatives bars the persons making the choice from the benefit of the one not selected on the principle of ‘estoppel by election’.”
NCDRC remarked that the argument of dissolution of joint venture agreement relieving obligations of one of the opposite parties was misconceived and could not be accepted.
“The issue is not of fixing a value to a piece of real estate which the complainant is in possession of. Rather, it is one of compensation for the deficiency in service and of indemnifying the complaint against any future loss.”
The Court explained that the power to special leave is an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it must be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations. It will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles.
A consumer complaint was filed before the TSCDRC alleging deficiency of service/medical negligence on part of the staff performing surgery, seeking compensation of Rs 40 lakhs.
“The report of the surveyor can be contested by the insured for valid reasons. The insurer is required to consider the report of the surveyor appointed by it although he is not bound to accept the report in entirety.”
NCDRC held the HSBC officials negligent and deficient in service entitling the complainants to compensation for unwarranted humiliation, embarrassment and loss of reputation.
NCDRC conveyed that “We have deep sympathies with the death of Justice Verma, but it cannot be ground for liability.”
Supreme Court: In an interesting case where one SBI account holder was left with a balance of Rs. 59/- only in his
Calcutta High Court: A Bench comprising of- Shivakant Prasad, J. dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that it