National consumer disputes redressal commission

O R D E R

        Delay of eight days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

3.     Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of respondent no. 1 was insured with the petitioner insurance company for a sum of Rs.2 lakh under a medi-claim policy and he had undergone a treatment for which he  spent Rs.1,63,109/-.  Against the claim of Rs.1,63,109/- made by the respondent – 1 / complainant, the petitioner insurance company paid Rs.20,000/- only on the plea that treatment in question was not a surgical treatment and for such non-surgical treatment only a total sum of Rs.20,000/- could be paid or reimbursed as hospitalisation expenses.  Not satisfied with the decision taken by the insurance company in restricting the claim to Rs.20,000/-, the petitioner knocked the door of the consumer fora by filing a complaint with the District Forum.  The District Forum vide its order dated 28.03.2008 held that the procedure of putting the tubes in the nose is not a surgical operation and as such it non-suited the claim of the petitioner / complainant and dismissed the complaint.  Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the respondent no. 1 went in appeal before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (State Commission ‘for short’) which vide its order dated 23.10.2008 allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner insurance company to pay the respondent no. 1 / complainant a sum of Rs.1,63,109/- minus the amount already paid, within two months from the date of the order.  In spite of service of the notice by the State Commission, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner insurance company and the other opposite party, hence they were proceeded exparte by the State Commission.  It is against this order of the State Commission that the petitioner / insurance company and OP No. 2 has filed the present revision petition.

4.     The only issue which has arisen for our consideration in this case is as to whether the treatment undertaken by the father of the respondent no. 1 was a surgical treatment or not?  It is seen from the impugned order that the State Commission has allowed the appeal and the claim of the complainant on the basis of a certificate of Dr. Mukesh Jain, MS (ENT) to the effect that the “tracheostomy” performed requires making a hole in the respiratory passage and, therefore, it is a surgical procedure.  Since the doubt raised by the insurance company about the nature of the treatment taken by the assured had been resolved with the certificate of the Doctor, the State Commission accepted the prayer of the complainant and allowed the entire amount spent for the treatment in terms of the medi-claim policy.  In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the definition of “surgical operation”, contained in para 63 of the Annexure I, which forms part of the policy, in question.  According to the counsel, the procedure in question would not amount to surgical operation as per the definition contained in the terms and conditions of the medi-claim policy.  In view of this, learned counsel pleaded that the impugned order accepting the full claim was bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

5.     We have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.  It is to be noted that in spite of notice sent by the State Commission, the petitioner insurance company chose to remain absent and hence proceeded exparte.  Petitioner has not placed any material to support its claim about non-receipt of the notice from the State Commission.  It is also seen that the petitioner has not placed any rebuttal in respect of the certificate issued by Dr. Mukesh Jain, who is ENT Surgeon and hence an expert, on the basis of which the State Commission has passed the impugned order.  In view of these facts, no fault could be found with the impugned order.  Consequently, we dismiss this revision petition but with no order as to costs.

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

..…………Sd/-…………………

MEMBER

 

REVISION PETITION  NO. 1614 OF 2012

(From the Order dated 17.11.2011 in Appeal No. 269/2011 of 

Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad)

Shri Vijay Maruti Dhandwade R/o Behind Hotel Maujam Professor Colony Chowk

Savedi, Ahmednagar Maharashtra

… Pettiioner

 

Versus

Shilpa Prabhakar Rawas R/o Balikashram Road Shinde Mala, Ahmednagar

Respondent

 

BEFORE:

                   HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

       HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

 

For the Petitioner                           :              Mr. Yatin M. Jagtap, Advocate 

 

Pronounced on :   14^th  January, 2013

There is a delay of 18 days in filing this revision petition. For the reasons submitted in the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay, the delay is condoned.

2.         This revision petition challenges the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench Aurangabad (‘State Commission’ for short) by which the State Commission dismissed appeal No.269 of 2011 in complaint case No.151 of 2010 filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated 7.4.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar.

3.         Briefly stated, petitioner herein was the opposite party before the District Forum and the respondent was the original complainant. The complainant/respondent agreed to purchase one family unit No.201 in the building called “Vyankatesh Heights” from the petitioner. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 10.3.2006 for a total consideration of Rs.3,80,000/-. While an amount of Rs.80,000/- was paid by the respondent to the petitioner on 10.3.2006, for the remaining amount, the respondent availed of loan from the HDFC Bank,Ahmednagar. The HDFC Bank is stated to have sanctioned the loan on 16.3.2006 and in pursuance thereof issued cheque of Rs.1,75,000/- and later another cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.5.2006. Both the amounts were received by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent is stated to have paid Rs.20,000/- on 1.6.2006 and an amount of Rs.9500/- on 9.6.2006 thereby completing the payment of entire consideration in respect of the flat. Even after receipt of the total consideration, the petitioner did not handover the possession of the flat and kept  certain works incomplete like light fitting, colouring, plumbing, etc. In view of this, the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The petitioner appeared before the District Forum and resisted the complaint. He denied any transaction for the purchase of said flat. However, he admitted having received an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- on 16.3.2006 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.5.2006. It was submitted by the petitioner before the District Forum that since the husband of the respondent and the petitioner were friends, nominal transaction of sale and purchase was entered into. According to the petitioner, the amount had been received by him was returned to the husband of the respondent as he was facing financial crisis. He, therefore, submitted that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the respondent and the petitioner.

4.         After hearing both the parties, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/opposite party to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent/complainant in respect of the said flat No.201 in “Vyankatesh Heights” and also directed the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order before the State Commission which was dismissed by the State Commission by the impugned order upholding the order of the District Forum. In these circumstances, the petitioner has now filed the present revision petition aggrieved by the impugned order.

5.         We have heard Mr. Yatin M. Jagtap, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The main contention of the learned counsel is that only a nominal agreement of sale was entered into because the husband of the respondent and the petitioner were friends but the amounts received in that respect were returned by the petitioner to the husband of the complainant because he was facing financial crisis. In view of this, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no question of executing any sale deed. He submitted that the State Commission erred in passing the impugned order without proper appreciation of the factual matrix and based on erroneous assumption of facts and hence the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of law and the material available on record and hence the same deserves to be set aside.

 6.         We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. We find that both the Fora below have returned their concurrent finding in favour of the respondent/complainant based on the facts of the case supported by the evidence placed before them. While upholding the order of the District Forum and dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, the State Commission has recorded the following reasons in paras 6 and 7 of the impugned order:-

“6. Adv. Patil submitted that, agreement to sale executed by appellant in favour of complainant. According to said price of flat i.e. Rs. 3,80,000/- was paid by the complainant herself and through HDFC Bank. Appellant received said consideration. Proof in that respect was produced by the complainant before the Forum. Allegations of appellant that, said amount was returned to the husband of complainant is not proved by the appellant. No documentary evidence to show that said amount was returned and sale transaction was nominal is produced by the appellant. District Forum rightly considered all the

7.         We agree with the concurrent finding of facts returned by the Fora below and do not see any ground to interfere with the same. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], this revision petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed at the threshold with no order as to costs.

     (K.S. CHAUDHARI, J.)

                                                                                                             PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                                            (SURESH CHANDRA)

                                                                                                                                     MEMBER

SS/

          FIRST APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2006

(Against the order dated 16.03.2006 in C.D. No. 41 of 2001 of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad)

Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital Represented by its Managing Partner Somajiguda, Raj Bhavan Road Hyderabad, A.P.

  Versus

 2.  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office 5-2-174/2, Madan Mohan Buildings R.P. Road Secundrabad, A.P.

                                            …      Respondents

BEFORE:

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT

 For Appellants                   :   Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Advocate with

                                                Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, Advocate

 For Respondent                :   NEMO for R-1

                                                Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate for R-2

 Pronounced on 15^th January, 2013

1.      This appeal has been filed by Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-hospital) being aggrieved by the order of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), which partially allowed the complaint of medical negligence and deficiency in service filed against them by Smt. A. Subbalakshmi, respondent no.1 herein and original complainant before the State Commission. 

2.      In her complaint before the State Commission, respondent no.1 had contended that her late husband (hereinafter referred to as the patient), who was a Senior Accountant in the Accountant General’s office, had a minor fall from his bed while sleeping and approached the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) dispensary with a complaint of muscular pain on the right side near the shoulder.  The medical examination revealed slight tenderness and swelling on the right shoulder blade region, for which he was advised to consult an orthopedic surgeon.  Patient thereafter got admitted in the appellant-hospital and the medical examination conducted by the orthopedic surgeon revealed that there was no orthopedic defect but there was some congestion on the nerve shoulder region which was fixed with collar and sling so as not to disturb the position.  Respondent no.1 noted that on 18.04.2000 the eyes of her husband were yellowish, which was indicative of jaundice and she informed the concerned doctors.  It was only two days later that a blood test was conducted, which indicated that moderate jaundice was prevalent.  According to respondent no.1, around 5.00 p.m. on 20.04.2000 her husband complained of breathlessness and a feeling of uneasiness and when she informed the doctor and nurses on duty, they were very casual and administered an injection to the patient late in the evening but his condition deteriorated.  It was, therefore, decided to shift him to the Intensive Care Unit but there was delay in doing so because no stretcher or wheelchair was available and ultimately he was taken to the Intensive Care Unit at 8.50 p.m. and expired there at 10.00 p.m.  According to respondent no.1, if her husband had been given proper and prompt medical treatment and necessary precautionary measures taken, including immediate treatment for jaundice, during his stay in the appellant-hospital, his premature death could have been avoided.  Being aggrieved she issued a legal notice on grounds of medical negligence to appellant-hospital as well as the treating doctor claiming a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- as compensation but to no avail. Therefore, respondent no.1 filed a complaint before the State Commission requesting that appellant-hospital and the treating doctor be jointly and severally directed to pay her Rs.10,60,000/- as compensation for mental pain and torture, medical expenses, legal & miscellaneous expenses and interest @ 24% per annum from 14.08.2000.   

3.      Appellant-hospital on being served filed a written statement denying the above allegations.  It was contended that as soon as the patient approached appellant- hospital with complaints of pain on the shoulder etc. on 14.04.2000, he was immediately examined by a consultant orthopedic surgeon, who confirmed that there was no fracture but only an injury to the soft tissue around the shoulder.  He was admitted into the hospital and was treated for the same and a cuff and collar was put on him and he was advised rest.  Since the patient had diabetes, medicines were also prescribed for the same and special care was taken to check the sugar level as also blood pressure etc.  As a result of the medical treatment given to him, the pain on the right shoulder considerably subsided and it was planned to discharge this patient on 21.04.2000.  However, on 19.04.2000 when the patient developed yellowish colouration of the eyes, he was examined by Dr. M.V. Rao, a Physician, and a Liver Function Test conducted confirmed the jaundice, for which he was given due treatment. On 20.04.2000, when the patient complained of breathlessness and sweating, he was immediately shifted to the Acute Medical Care Unit and a cardiologist attended to him, wherein he was diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction, for which he was given treatment, including cardio pulmonary resuscitation.  He was also put on the ventilator but despite the best efforts, he died at 10.00 p.m.  The death of the patient occurred due to the sudden myocardial infarction, which is quite common in diabetic patients and, therefore, his death could not be attributed to any medical negligence on the part of the appellant-hospital/doctors. Therefore, the complaint made by respondent no.1 of medical negligence and deficiency in service against appellant-hospital was baseless.

4.      The State Commission, after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence filed before it, concluded that so far as the orthopedic problem of the patient was concerned, he was treated with reasonable care and caution and, therefore, no case of medical negligence against respondent no.2 i.e. the specialist doctor was established and also consequently respondent no.3, the New India Assurance Co., with which he was insured.  However, the State Commission found appellant-hospital guilty of not taking due care and giving prompt treatment to the patient.  In this connection, the relevant part of the State Commission’s observation is as under :-

“…  There are many unanswered questions with respect to cause of death whether it can be Pulmonary embolism or Myocardial Infraction which only the opposite parties can answer but they have not chosen to do so either in their counter, affidavits, discharge summary or case sheet, but only came up with this plea of Myocardial Infraction during arguments.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that though opposite party No.2 treated the patient with reasonable care and caution so far as orthopaedic problem is concerned, we are of the view that opposite party No.1 hospital did not take due care and precaution by giving prompt treatment to the patient.  The patient joined the hospital on 14-4-2000 complaining of right shoulder pain and was put on a cuff and colar and was admittedly to be discharged on 18-4-2000.  On 20-4-2000 he developed breathlessness and at 5.00 p.m. as per the complainant’s version and at 7.45 p.m., as per the version of the opposite parties.  It is pertinent to note that there is a visible correction in the timings on page – 26 of the case sheet which has not been initialed or signed.  Post mortem report could probably have confirmed the factors leading to the cause of death, however no post mortem was insisted on by the complainant or his relatives and therefore, the compensation being awarded is a nominal amount.  It is the case of the complainant that the doctors and nursing staff were not alert enough immediately when the breathlessness developed.  The patient was already admitted in the hospital for shoulder pain five days prior to the attack of breathlessness and the burden lies on the hospital to prove that they were alert enough and attended to him immediately. …”

5.      The State Commission, therefore, directed appellant-hospital to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 14.03.2001 till the date of realization within six weeks, failing which the said sum would attract interest @ 9% per annum together with costs of Rs.5000/-.  Hence, the present first appeal.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant-hospital stated that the State Commission erred in concluding that it was guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service.  In fact, immediately on patient’s admission, all the necessary diagnostic tests like x-ray, ECG etc. were conducted and there was no indication of any heart problem since the ECG was normal.  However, since the patient was a known case of diabetes, he was prescribed medication to control his sugar levels. His injury was also properly treated by a specialist orthopedic doctor and thereafter his condition continued to be carefully monitored and had improved.  On 20.04.2000, around 8.00 p.m. (and not 5.00 p.m. as contended by respondent no.1) when the patient developed breathlessness and sweating, which was a sudden complication, he was immediately referred to a cardiologist, who attended to him within ten minutes.  Thereafter, he was shifted to the Intensive Care Unit within twenty minutes and put on a ventilator around 8.30 p.m.  The relatives of the patient were also informed about his critical medical condition and poor prognosis.  A team of doctors put in their best efforts to save the life of the patient but unfortunately failed to do so.  The sudden heart attack was neither due to negligence of the doctors or administration of any wrong medicine.  Thus, the appellant-hospital cannot be held to be guilty for the unfortunate death, which occurred despite the best possible treatment as per standard procedures.

8.      Counsel for respondent no.1 on the other hand stated that the appellant-hospital took the plea that the patient died of a myocardial infarction only at the argument stage before the State Commission.  This fact was not mentioned either in the death report or in the medical history of the patient filed before the State Commission.  There was no evidence that an ECG was conducted and the appellant’s explanation that the ECG and its findings had faded away with the passage of time lacks credibility.  The patient was under the treatment and care of the appellant-hospital for six days and because they did not properly monitor his condition, it deteriorated with the onset of jaundice and other complications for which the State Commission rightly held it responsible for medical negligence and deficiency in service.

9.      We have heard learned counsel for both parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.  The fact that the patient was admitted after a fall in his sleep to the appellant-hospital, wherein he was treated by opposite party no.2, is not in dispute.  It is further a fact that six days after his admission in the hospital, patient developed breathlessness and severe uneasiness and he was examined by a cardiologist and shifted to the Intensive Care Unit, where he passed away.  The appellant-hospital has sought to explain the cause of his death as a result of sudden myocardial infarction.  However, we note (as also observed by the State Commission) that this fact has not been recorded either in the case history or death certificate of the patient.  Further, appellant-hospital’s contention that an earlier ECG conducted on the patient did not indicate any abnormality is also not available on the record.  When specifically asked by us if there was any proof of the same, learned counsel for the appellant-hospital stated that it was very much a part of the case history and related papers filed before the State Commission but unfortunately the ECG image as also the observations recorded on it were not visible since these had faded away.  We agree with the State Commission that this is not a plausible explanation.  We further agree with the finding of the State Commission that the appellant-hospital has not been able to satisfactorily explain as to what caused the death of the patient, which leaves many unanswered questions, including whether he was given prompt and adequate treatment by the appellant-hospital.

10.    In view of these facts, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission and uphold the same.  This first appeal stands dismissed. The appellant-hospital is directed to pay respondent no.1 a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 14.03.2001 till payment along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.        

 

Sd/-

 

Sd/-

MEMBER

 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

 

(FIRST APPEAL NO.387 OF 2007)

(From the order dated 19.03.2007 in CC No.127/1999

of the State Commission, Gujarat)
 

Kersi F.Dalal                                                                  ……Appellant(s)

Versus

Dr.Janak K.Mehta & Ors.                                             ……Respondent(s)

 
BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MRS.VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Appellant (s)             :        Mr.S.J.Mehta, Advocate

For the Respondent (s)          :        Dr.Sushil Kr.Gupta, Advocate for R-1

and R-2.

 

ORDER

 

PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

 

          This revision petition has been filed by Kersi F. Dalal(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant’) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat(hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) which had dismissed his complaint of medical negligence filed against Dr.Janak K.Mehta and Dr.Jayesh J.Shah, Respondents No.1 and 2 herein.  The National Insurance Co.Ltd. is Respondent No.3 in this case.

“There is nothing oral or written on record or evidence to suggest that treatment given to Mr.Dalal was incomplete, inappropriate or wrong.  Mere say of Mr.Dalal (in absence of any documentary or oral evidence) cannot be accepted as truth.  Mr.Dalal had ample time and opportunity to bring forth the evidence to substantiate the claim, but sadly complainant has failed to avail it.  As far as opponent No.1 Dr.Mehta is concerned, though Mr.Dalal was not serious (as indicated by records showing his physical condition and vital data) Dr.Mehta showed indulgence to take him to Dr.Thakore for consultation.  Dr.Shah for sonography and put I/V drip at home.  These acts in itself will suggest that he exercised due care expected of him.  As far as treatment in form of medicine is concerned nothing indicates that the medicines given were wrong or inappropriate done o that medicine had harmed Mr.Dalal.  As far as Dr.Thakore’s management is concerned, Mr.Dalal chose to ignore his advice to get hospitalized for treatment and chose to go to Pune of his own sweet will for further treatment.  We do not have records of medical management of said treatment at Pune on record……………..Dr.Shah against whom allegations of poor quality of x-ray & sonography are not proved; Mr.Dalal has not only not produced the film nor an opinion on that film.  Dr.Shah also rules out as physical impossibility to put straps tightly or for that matter even to put the strap as then sonography will not be possible, but in fact he did sonography further suggesting non-putting of strap.  Mr.Dalal has not shown us how Dr.Shah’s report are wrong or his machineries were outdated, not even challenged the same in written statement of Dr.Shah or his evidence.”

          Hence, the present First Appeal. 

          Learned Counsel for Respondent on the other hand stated that the clinical condition of the Appellant was carefully assessed after due examination he was given conservative treatment as warranted during the first 3 days.  Thereafter, when the complaints persisted, Appellant was advised to consult a specialist surgeon and in fact Respondent No.1 not only fixed the appointment but also accompanied him to the surgeon who advised diagnostic tests including a sonography which was properly conducted by Respondent No.2 who had a post-graduate degree in Pathology and was fully qualified to conduct the same.  It was the Appellant who erred in rejecting the medical advice to get himself admitted in the hospital and instead rushed to Pune for further treatment.  There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.

          We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record.  The fact that the Appellant consulted Respondent No.1 with complaints related to his abdomen with nausea and related problems is not in dispute.  It is also a fact that Respondent No.1 who was a qualified doctor after examining the Appellant decided to treat him conservatively since the parameters relating to his blood-pressure, temperature and the condition of the stomach was not unduly abnormal.  There is nothing on record produced by the Appellant, on whom there was onus to do so, to support his contentions that he had very high temperature and other severe problems.  We further note that when the Appellant’s condition remained the same with the lower abdominal pain continuing, he was immediately referred to a specialist surgeon and then a qualified Radiologist for conducting the required diagnostic tests which included sonography and X-ray.  Appellant has made certain allegations against Respondent No.2/Radiologist pertaining to the quality of the sonography conducted by him.  However, again there is nothing on record to support this contention.  In fact, the sonography and diagnostic test reports were seen by a specialist surgeon who advised hospitalization since there was a possibility of surgery.  The Appellant, however, chose not to get admitted to the hospital and instead went to Pune for treatment.  These facts have also been confirmed by the State Commission as a first court of fact.

What constitutes medical negligence is now well established [Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1] and essentially three principles are required to be followed: (i) Whether the doctor in question possessed the medical skills expected of an ordinary skilled practitioner in the field at that point of time; (ii) Whether the doctor adopted the practice (of clinical observation diagnosis – including diagnostic tests and treatment) in the case that would be adopted by such a doctor of ordinary skill in accord with (at least) one of the responsible bodies of opinion of professional practitioners in the field and (iii) whether the standards of skills/knowledge expected of the doctor, according to the said body of medical opinion, were of the time when the events leading to the allegation of medical negligence occurred and not of the time when the dispute was being adjudicated.

Applying these principles to the present case, we see no reason to disagree with the order of the State Commission, which had concluded that there was no deficiency in service or medical negligence in the treatment of the appellant, which was done by well-qualified doctors using their best professional judgment and skills to treat the patient after conducting the necessary diagnostic and clinical tests.  The appellant has not been able to produce any credible evidence, including documentary or expert evidence to contradict or controvert these facts.  We, therefore, uphold the order of the State Commission in toto and dismiss this first appeal.  No costs.

 

Sd/-

/sks/   

 REVISION PETITION NO.  4924 OF  2012

of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai)

M/s. Shree Constructions, Through its Partner- Mr. Umesh Raosaheb Pawar Patil Address at : 102, Ganga Prasad, Ghantali, Sainath Chowk, Ram Ganesh Gadkari Road Naupada, Thane (W)-400 602                                   ... Petitioner

Versus

1. Shree Residency CHS Ltd. Near Shankar Temple Old Mumbai-Pune Road Mumbra-400 612

 2. Shri Namdev K. Patil, An adult, R/at Flat No. A/01, 

3. Shri Harishchandra K. Patil, An adult, R/at Flat No. A/02,

 4. Shri Narayan K. Patil, An adult, R/at Flat No. A/201, 

5. Shri Dattatray K. Patil An adult, R/at Flat No. A/201

Nos. 2 to 5 are residents of Shree Residency CHS Ltd., Near Shankar Temple, Mumbra-400 612 Dist. Thane.                                                        ... Respondents

  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

  HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER