TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2022 has challenged the said order along with the order dated 08.03.2011 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "APSCDRC"). 3. The challenge is on the ground that the liability as has been imposed upon the Appellant and the proforma Respondent No.2 - Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar on the ground of negligence without there being any medical literature or evidence of any expert substantiating the said findings deserve to be set aside. 4. It is asserted by the Appellant that the hospital and the doctors working therein who had treated the deceased son of Respondent no.1 - the complainant, had followed the due standard of care expected of a medical professional. Once a reasonable competent p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the NCDRC as far as the liability of the appellant and Respondent No.2 is concerned. 9. On the basis of the discussion as has been referred to including the medical evidence as also the medical records of the deceased patient, it is asserted by the Counsel for Respondent no. 1 that the findings are in consonance with the pleadings calling for no interference by this Court. Similarly, the quantum of compensation for the negligence as has been assessed by the NCDRC is also supported by contending that the deceased was 27 years of age and was a B.Tech graduate. He was also working in a soap factory and, therefore, the amount of compensation as has been assessed by NCDRC is fully justified calling for no interference by this Court. 10. H....