Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: tamil nadu state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc chennai Page 1 of about 40 results (0.029 seconds)

Oct 08 2012 (TRI)

B. Suvarama Phani Vs. the Chairman / Managing Director, Miot Hospitals ...

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

..... reports were still awaited. he allowed the patient to go home asking him to come back with all the investigation reports and for the time being, taking into account the patents clinical history he made a provisional diagnosis of infective hepatitis and described broad spectrum antibiotics and other drugs and the patient was asked to come back for review. he advised ..... records and when there is reliable and cogent evidence on record to substantiate the negligence of the opposite parties, we need not go in search of experts evidence. it is patently evident that there has been negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 right from the beginning till the end, throughout the process .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2011 (TRI)

M/S. Kola Saraswathy Maternity Hospital Vs. Elumalai and Another

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

..... behalf of the complainant. therefore, under presumption or assumption, we cannot justify the inaction on the part of the first opposite party, in detecting the jaundice, which must have been patent in the patient, that could be seen from the case history of the patient maintained by the second opposite party. 17. ex.b1 is the case record maintained for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 2011 (TRI)

AshwIn Parekh, Proprietor of Sri Sahajanand Cardio Care Vs. the Branch ...

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

..... was presented as said above, the complainant had no account and he is not a customer or a consumer. therefore, the return of the cheque, for insufficient fund, which is patently incorrect also, cannot be taken as deficiency in service or negligence act, as far as the complainant is concerned. the complainant, instead of stopping further activities, issued notice, which was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 2011 (TRI)

V. Soundararajan Vs. Sister Leema, Administrator and Others

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

..... as the mode of treatment or method of treatment given in ex.a10 are not questioned. a careful reading makes it abundantly clear that the baby had no abnormal problem, patently. the report says that the baby was referred with the complaints of cyanosis and mild respiratory distress. on admission, the third opposite party noticed the baby was normothermic, pink with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2006 (TRI)

M/S. Speed Birds Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, Vellore and Anoth ...

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

..... as it may. the allegation in the complaint that he gave his passport and letters of invitation to attend both the conferences in the third week of september 1996 is patently false. there is absolutely no proof with regard to the malacca conference invitation prior to 4.11.1996. 12. again, in the complaint in paragraph 13 he says that he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 2012 (TRI)

The Manager, State Bank of India and Another Vs. Sanath V. Shukla

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

..... issued, returned with an endorsement ??insufficient funds ? and the complainant had sufficient amount in his bank account, are all evidenced by document, not under challenge, including the return ??funds insufficient ? patently incorrect. thus confirming the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, now we will consider the other defence. 8. admittedly, the cheque was dishonoured or not honoured .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2014 (TRI)

The Special Officer / Secretary, Cuddalore Co-operative Primary Agricu ...

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

..... dozer and further in the mortgage deed ex.b3, it is mentioned that the complainant is an agriculturist and the loan is availed for land development purpose. therefore, it is patently evident that the loan obtained by the complainant is only for agricultural purpose and the contention of the opposite party that it is not an agricultural loan and that it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2011 (TRI)

Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Ramasamy and Oth ...

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

..... .99 and the offending vehicle, was lorry bearing no.kl b2264, for that admittedly criminal case was filed against the lorry driver, who admitted the guilt also. therefore, it is patent, that this accident had taken place, not by the negligent or rash driving of the llr holder, by name srinivasan, whereas this accident had occurred due to the negligent act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2012 (TRI)

The Secretary C.L. Spl. 169 Ottai Vanoor Primary Agricultural Cooperat ...

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

..... an admitted fact. it is not the case of the opposite parties, that with the consent of the complainant, this amount was transferred to fd account, and therefore it is patent that the amount was deprived, the utility of the amount was deprived to the complainant, by investing the same in fixed deposit, fixing maturity date. alleging this as deficiency, a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2011 (TRI)

Muthu Sivaraman Vs. the Divisional Manager the Oriental Insurance Comp ...

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

..... for each is rs.1 lakh. admittedly, under the exclusion clause 4.1 ??all diseases/ injuries, which are pre-existing, when the cover incepts for the first time ? , excluded thereby patently indicating if the insured had taken any treatment for the pre-existing/ existing disease, on the date of inception of the policy, the company is not liable to pay the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //