A writ petition sought refund of fees collected for a medical examination and reimbursement of costs incurred pursuing consumer forum cases against a doctor. The court found the Appellate Authority's dismissal of the claim reasonable and dismissed the petition without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[33001
\
oFTELANGANA rN rHEHIGH "orTf8$oTfoBtHE (SPeciai OriginalJurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THESIXTH DAY OF AUGUST ":illv'olnousAND AND TwENTY FlvE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA
WRITPETTTION NO:2861 0F 2019
""*"iln rnirla, D/o KistanRao'aged about 49 years'occ PrivateEmployee' FVo 5-5-id'o'chappalBazar' Hyderabad'
...PETITIONER
..RESPONDENTS
PetitionunderArticle 226 of the Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the circumstancesstated in tnJ'f'o""iir""o '"'"it'the Hiqh court may be pleased to issuea writ,order o' oii""iiln''o'i'pu'ti"ur"t.rvtne"in hereinthe innot nature returning of writ theof mandamusdeclaring tn" i'i"'""r'tf- 'Stpono"ntt amountwhich were "orl"IiJi'; ;";and cost collectedfor examinationof Rs.'10,000/-along with t"'t *ii#*Li"incurred for orosecuting the cases before differenrforums of n..so,6o6l- i"r gettingjustice and drivinq the Petitionerfrom oitlarto post for regar rignilit';i';tit';;;i"king for return of the amountwhich wiirrout treating-and withoutprescribingany were high medicinesas handedly illegal,aroitra"i "oriJ"J-IIo 'niaitttuue praltice by boththe respondents
Counselfor the Petitioner:SRI'B BALAMUKUNDARAO
Counsel forthe RespondentNos'1&2: SRIVADEENDRA JOSHI
Counsel forthe Respondent No'3: GP FOR MEDICAL' HEALTH ANDFW
The Court madethe following:ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.28 67 of 2079
ORD ER:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Vade.endra Joshi learned counsel altpearing for respondent Nos.1 &,2 learned Government pleader for Medical, Heaith and Family Welfare appearing for respondent lVo.3, and perused the record.
2 The milin grievance of the petitioner in ;he present Writ PetitiorL rs to the inaction of the responclents 1n returning the amount collected from the petitioner, as fee and cost of examination in a sum of Rs.1O,O00/_ and also not payingT,re turning a sum of Rs.SO,000/_ tow;rrds costs/ expenditure i:.rcurred in prosecuting cases befo::e different forums.
a Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent N,rs.l & 2 is filed.
2
and thesaid case was dismissed" As against the said order,she had preferred appeal uide FA'No' 196 of 2Ol7 beforethe State ConsumerDisputesRedressal Commission of TelanganaatHyderabad(forshort 'theAppellate Authority'),and the said appeal was dismissed confirming the orderof the District ConsumerForum-III'Hyderabad' observingthat the the respondent No' 1 refusedto treat the petitioneron the ground that the tests undergoneby the petitionerwere not as prescribedby him' and thereafter thepetitioner approached some other hospital and got treatmentdone, and thus' the same does not amount to deficiencyof service on the part of the respondent No' 1 as a doctor
3
B. Conse<1uently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall strlnd closed.
To,
,-SD4 K.BHAVANI SWAMY STANT REGISTRAR / ssqt It.' SECTION OFFICER I
//TRUE COPY//
KKS LS
1
i
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/OBt2O2s
ORDER
WP.No.2861 ot,2O1g
1D ir r
::ij, 1
.-.,
'{+
'.:.'.._. .
\i.
DISMISSING TI-{E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
Z
1/-
n, /?
2 issues framed by the court
Should respondents be directed to refund Rs.10,000 collected as examination fee and pay costs incurred in prosecuting cases before consumer forums?
Does the reasoned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission warrant interference by this Court?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. G. Narasimulu
The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Medical and Health
Nagesh Bheemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
