w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Soma Barman Nee Datta v/s Sunil Chandra Podder & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- R DATTA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC015097

Company & Directors' Information:- R K CHANDRA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36911WB1989PTC046753

Company & Directors' Information:- SUNIL & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U32109WB1984PTC037810

Company & Directors' Information:- H CHANDRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1952PTC008894

    Complaint Case No. CC/471/2016

    Decided On, 14 November 2019

    At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. DIPA SEN (MAITY)
    By, MEMBER

    For the Complainant: Kripasindhu Panja, Advocate. For the Opp. Party: Hillol Saha Podder, Suman Sehanabis (Mondal), Advocates.



Judgment Text

Samaresh Prasad Chowdhury, Presiding Member

The instant complaint Under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the behest of a victim of alleged medical negligence against the Director of a Private Nursing Home (Opposite Party No. 1), Chairman, Coochbehar Municipality Blood Bank (Opposite Party No.2) and the Doctor attached to OP No. 1 Nursing Home (Opposite Party No. 3) with a prayer for compensation of Rs. 1 crore.

Succinctly put, complainant’s case is that on account of suffering from gynaecological and menstrual problem on 14.03.2016 she visited to OP No. 3 for her medical treatment. After clinical examination, OP No. 3 prescribed some medicine and also advised for blood test at Dr. Pompi Bhattacharya’s Lab and advised for USG report. On 16.03.2016 the complainant went to the said laboratory for her blood test and also went to Devi Diagnostic Centre for USG report where her blood test and USG were done. On that evening the complainant met OP No. 3 alongwith the blood test report and USG report. The OP No. 3 told her that she has been suffering from deficiency of blood and advised her for transfusion of 3 units of blood and also advised to consult with general physician. Accordingly, the complainant went to meet Dr. P. Das, General Physician who only, changed power of medicine prescribed by OP No. 3. On the following day according to the instruction of OP No. 3 the complainant was admitted at OP No. 1 private Nursing Home for her blood transfusion where OP No. 3 was the consulting doctor. The complainant’s husband Sri Chandan Dutta collected the blood sample issued by OP No. 1 Nursing Home and went to OP No. 2 blood bank to collect 3 units of blood. The OP No. 2 blood bank collected two outside blood donor from whom they collected two units of blood without checking blood sample and cross matching report. When the husband of the complainant insisted the OP No. 2 for cross matching, the OP No. 2 Bank told him that there is no reason for any anxiety. The husband of the complainant donated one unit blood to OP No. 2. The husband of the complainant collected three units of blood being unit No. 5746, 5747 and 5748 after payment of Rs. 900/- from him. The said blood unit No. 5746 was from the husband of the complainant and the unit Nos. 5747 and 5748 were from outside donor. Thereafter, the husband of the complainant deposited the said three unit blood to the OP No. 1 Nursing Home and thereafter, the said three units blood transfusion were done in the body of the complainant under the supervision/treatment of OP No. 3. The said blood transfusion was started on 17.03.2016 at 9.30 P.M and finished on 18.03.2016 at 5 P.M. The complainant has stated that when the blood transfusion of other two units were started and on going on she felt illness and fever and loose motion were started. When the complainant requested OP No. 3 to stop the blood transfusion, the OP No. 3 neglected her request and told her that the said symptom is normal at the time of blood transfusion. On 19.03.2016 OP No. 3 discharged the complainant from OP No. 1 Nursing Home in spite of her fever, illness and loose motion. After coming from OP No. 1 nursing home, the complainant feeling illness met Dr. S.K. Paul for her remedy on 24.03.2016, 25.03.2016 and 26.03.2016. Dr Paul prescribed some medicine and advised for USG report and on examination it was found bulky uterus and multiple small stone in Gall Bladder were detected in the USG report. In spite of treatment of Dr. S.K Paul the illness of complainant were increasing continuously for which the complainant was taken to North DumDum Municipal Hospital on 29.03.2016 where her blood test was done. On 30.03.2016 on the advice of the Doctor of the said hospital, the complainant was taken to ‘Suraksha’ for her HIV test and on examination HIV-1 Reactive was detected. On 01.04.2016 the complainant was taken to Carmichael Hospital for Tropical deceases, Government of West Bengal where the complainant was advised for blood test of ICTV-Virology and on the said test HIV-Reactive was detected. The complainant has stated that her husband or her daughter are not HIV patients. The complainant has submitted that she has been living with her husband since their marriage on 20.12.2007 but after detection of HIV test she has been living freely with her husband and her daughter has also segregated her. The complainant has alleged that without checking blood sample and cross matching report the blood transfusion was done by OP nos. 1 to 3 which was wrongful and negligence and also deficiency in services.

The Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. the Poddar Seva Sadan Private Limited by filing written version has stated that after seeing the result of bio-chemical examination of the complainant from Dr. Pompi Bhattacharya’s pathology laboratory, the OP No. 3 noticed that the complainant was suffering from very low range of T.S.H. and Haemoglobin as well. Accordingly, OP No. 3 has rightly advised for blood transfusion which was duly affirmed by another Doctor i.e. Dr. P. Das. The OP No. 1 has stated that the patient party i.e. the husband of the patient brought the blood from OP No. 2 and handed it over to them and the same was accordingly transfused. The OP No. 1 has denied the fact that in spite of patient’s fever, and loose motion, the OP No. 3 or they had discharged the patient and has specifically stated that the husband of the patient on his own sweet will took discharge of the wife. The OP No. 1has further stated that the first HIV test of the complainant was done at least 6 months back from the date when her HIV antibodies was found positive. Therefore, according to OP No. 1 the complaint should be dismissed with costs.

The Opposite Party No. 2 entered appearance but failed to submit written version within the stipulated period of limitation. Therefore, in view of the decision of Three- Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2016 (1) Supreme 319 (New India Assurance Company Limited –vs- Hilli Multi-purpose Cold Storage Private Limited) ,by order No. 06 dated 01.09.2017 the OP No. 2 was prevented from filing written version and it was observed that the complaint will proceed against OP No. 2 ex parte. Challenging the aforesaid order, OP No. 2 did not move in any higher forum and allowed to proceed the case ex parte.

The Opposite Party No.3 by filing a separate written version has stated that after seeing the result of bio-chemical examination of the patient from Dr. Pompi Bhattacharya’s pathology lab, he noticed that the patient had been suffering from low range of T.S.H and haemoglobin. Accordingly, he advised for blood-transfusion which was duly affirmed by another doctor i.e. Dr. P. Das. The OP No. 3 has stated that he along with other doctor suggested for blood-transfusion and accordingly issued blood sample of the patient and the patient party i.e. the husband of the patient himself collected the blood from the Cooch Behar Municipality Blood Bank (OP No. 2). The OP No. 3 has further stated that he or the OP No. 1 neither referred the patient party to collect the blood from said blood bank nor had any interference in it. He has submitted that he has performed his duty with utter sincerity and there was no deficiency or negligence on the part of him or OP No. 1. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.

In support of her case, complainant has tendered evidence through affidavit. She has also give reply against the questionnaire set forth by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3.

On behalf of Opposite Party No. 1, Sri Sunil Chandra Poddar, Director of Poddar Seva Sadan Private Limited has adduced evidence through affidavit. OP No. 3 Dr. Dipankar Datta, MD (Gynaecology and Obstetrician) has also tendered evidence through affidavit. However, reply has been given by OP No. 3 on behalf of OP Nos. 1 and 3 against the questionnaire set forth by complainant.

Both the parties have relied upon several documents in support of their respective cases. At the time of final hearing, on behalf of complainant brief notes of argument has been filed. Though OP Nos. 1 and 3 were under obligation to file BNA in accordance with 13 (2) of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 as they were represented through the Ld. Advocates yet they choose not to file the same. However, at the time of final hearing both the complainant and Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3 were represented through their respective Ld. Advocates.

The overwhelming evidence on record make it abundantly clear that the complainant, who was a married woman of 34 years of age, being a resident of village- Jhaljhali P.O.- Deocharai, P.S.- Tufangang, Dist- Cooch Behar on account of suffering from gynaecological problem visited OP No. 3 at his chamber for treatment on 14.03.2016. After clinical examination the doctor advised the complainant for blood test including Haemoglobin, Platelet Count and USG of lower abdomen.

The evidence on record further goes to show that on 16.03.2018 the test was done at Dr. Pompi Bhattacharya’s Pathology Lab at Cooch Behar and on examination Haemoglobin Count was found 6.6 gm. The complainant’s/patient’s blood group was found O+. Immediately after collecting the report the patient party consulted OP No. 3 with the test reports. OP No. 3 prescribed ‘Eltroxin 100 mg’ and to advise to take admission for blood transfusion of 3 units as HB was very low and the complainant was also advised to consult one physician. On the self-same day the patient party visited one Dr. P. Das, General Physician, who change the power of medicine Eltroxin from 100 mg to 50 mg.

It also remains undisputed that on 17.03.2016 the complainant, patient was admitted in Poddar Seva Sadan Private Limited, Cooch Behar (OP No.1) for transfusion of blood as prescribed by OP No. 3. The complainant’s husband, Sri Chandan Datta had collected 3 units of blood from Cooch Behar Municipality Blood Bank (OP No. 2). On the self-same day, the husband of the patient party handed over three units of blood to OP No. 1 nursing home. Accordingly, the blood transfusion was started on 17.03.2016 at 9.30 P.M under the supervision of OP No. 3. On 19.07.2016 after blood transfusion of three units the complainant/ patient was discharged from OP No. 1 nursing home. It is specifically alleged by the complainant that the number of three units of blood were 5746, 5747 and 5748 out of which the husband of the patient donated one unit of blood and two units of blood were purchased from OP No. 2 on payment of Rs. 900/-. It is also specifically alleged by the complainant that during blood transfusion from unit No. 5747 the patient had developed fever and loose motion and complaint the same to OP No. 3 but OP No. 3 ignored the same and told that symptom was normal during blood transfusion and not worry about the same.

The complainant has categorically stated that she was discharged with fever and loose motion on 19.03.2016 after three units of blood being transfused under the supervision and care of OP 3. In this regard, the questionnaire filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties appears to be noteworthy. In a question as to whether the OP No. 1 referred the patient party to collect the blood from the said particular blood bank to which it has been replied – “ .... Opposite Party No. 1 referred me namely the patient to collect blood from the particular Blood Bank.” In another question as to whether during transfusion the patient asked the Opposite Party No. 3 or the Opposite Party No. 1 to stop transfusion since she was not feeling well to which the complainant/patient replied- “..... I say that during transfusion I asked the Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 1 to stop transfusion since I was not feeling well, at that time”

It may be pertinent to record that the OP No. 1 or OP No. 3 in their written version took a plea that HIV test of the complainant was done at least 6 months back from the date when her HIV-1 antibodies was found positive. However, either OP No. 1 or OP No. 3 has failed to advance any evidence to that effect. On the contrary, in question No. 10 on behalf of the OPs a question put to the complainant/patient-

“10. Whether the first HIV test of the patient was done at least 6 months back from the date when her HIV-1 antibodies was found positive? To which it was replied- “...... I say that my HIV test was done on 07.01.2015 long before 6 months of detecting HIV but at that point of time that is on 7th January, 2015 no positive result was found to such test but negative was found to the HIV test, by Narayana Super Speciality Hospital in Margassa Road at Bangalore.”

The said report of the Narayana Diagnostic Centre, Bangalore is available with the record where from it appears that on 07.01.2015 the patient was examined and on examination her Haemoglobin was 9.8 mg and HIV (Rapid) was found negative. Therefore, it becomes crystal clear that prior to visiting OP No. 3 on 14.03.2016 or prior to admission of patient in OP No. 1 nursing home on 17.03.2016 there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the complainant/patient had been detected with HIV positive. Therefore, it is quite apparent that in order to absolve their responsibility somehow, the OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 have made a bald statement that about 6 months prior to the date of transfusion of blood HIV test of the complainant/patient was done when her HIV antibodies was found positive.

Be that as it may, after discharge from OP No. 1 nursing home, the complainant/patient being felt fever and loose motion came to Kolkata and visited one Dr. S.K. Paul on consecutive three dates i.e. 24.03.2016, 25.03.2016 and 26.03.2016. Dr. Paul prescribed medicines and advised for USG abdomen. After examination of USG report it was found that uterus was bulky and multiple calculis in the gall bladder. Despite such treatment the condition of the complainant was not improved, which compelled the complainant was admitted to North DumDum Municipal Hospital for treatment on 29.03.2016 and ultimately, the blood test was done on 30.03.2016 at Suraksha Hospital where HIV positive was detected.

The evidence on record speaks that Sri Chandan Datta, husband of the complainant/ victim was advised by OP Nos. 1 and 3 to purchase blood for which Sri Datta had been to OP No. 2 blood bank to collect the blood. The husband of the victim collected the blood from OP No. 2 blood bank on payment of Rs. 900/-. The OP No. 2 blood bank issued one cross-matching report dated 17.03.2016 against the blood O+. Though the said document speaks ‘Cross Matching Report’ but essentially the report does not appear to be a cross matching report. In fact, OP No. 2 Blood Bank did not cross match the blood. In the column for ‘indication for transfusion’ is blank and no remark has been given regarding transfusion.

Surprisingly enough, OP No. 3 also did not cross match before transfusion of blood in order to determine whether the donor’s blood is compatible with the blood of the patient. Needless to say, there are several hazards of blood transfusion. Therefore, to prevent complications, physicians must always asked for blood either from the hospital blood bank or from well recognised blood banks, like the red cross blood bank. It must be ensured that the blood has been cross matched and tested for AIDS, Hepatitis, Venereal Deceases etc. Admittedly, the OP No. 3 being a responsible Doctor did not cross match the blood obtained by the husband from OP No. 2 blood bank. The OP No. 2 blood bank is equally responsible for handing over the blood to the husband of the victim without cross match. In fact, the certificate of cross matching report issued by OP No. 2 blood bank has given a note that a cross matching report and the bottle of the blood supplied must be verified before giving transfusion. However, OP No. 1 nursing home or OP No. 3 doctor did not follow the same.

In a decision reported in (1996) 4 SCC 332 (Poonam Verma –vs- Ashwin Patel and Ors.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :

“40. Negligence has many manifestations- it may be active negligence, collateral negligence, comparative negligence, concurrent negligence, continued negligence, criminal negligence, gross negligence, hazardous negligence, active and passive negligence, wilful or reckless negligence or Negligence per se.”

In another case reported in (1998) 4 SCC 39 ( Spring Meadows Hospital and another –vs- Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia and another ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed :

“Very often in a claim for compensation arising out of medical negligence a plea is taken that it is a case of bona fide mistake which under certain circumstances may be excusable, but a mistake which would tantamount to negligence cannot be pardoned. In the former case a court can accept that ordinary human fallibility precludes the liability while in the latter the conduct of the defendant is considered to have gone beyond the bounds of what is expected of the skill of a reasonably competent doctor.”

The above observation implies that where the doctors act carelessly and in a manner which is not expected of a medical practitioner, then in such a case an action on torts would be maintainable. In the case of Kusum Sharma and others –vs- Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Others reported in 2010 (1) CPR 167 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that as long as the doctors have performed their duties and exercised an ordinary degree of professional skill and competence, they cannot be held guilty of medical negligence.

Blood transfusion is an important part of day to day clinical practice and provide unique and life saving therapy benefit to the patient. The major concern from point of view of both user( recipient) and provider (clinician) is for safe, effective and quality blood to be available when required. Keeping in view the above guidelines and the authorities referred above it can be safely hold that the Opposite Party No. 3 being a skilled doctor should not have committed that kind of negligence in cross matching of the blood of the donor with the blood of the patient before transfusion of the blood to determine whether the blood of the donors is compatible with the blood of the patient. Therefore, OP No. 3 did not comply with standard practice for blood transfusion and due to such negligence of the Opposite Parties, the complainant contacted HIV.

The evidence on record speaks that on account of suffering from Cholethiasis with Appendicitis the husband of the complainant underwent operation at PD Hinduja Sindhi Hospital at Bangalore and on 17.10.2015 he underwent a Serology Test and at that time it was found that HIV test was detected as non-reactive. It is equally important to record that Namrata, Daughter of complainant who was then 8 years old underwent blood test on 13.04.2016 at West Bengal AIDS Prevention and Control Society at Madhyamgram where her HIV test report was shown as NR i.e. Non- reactive.

Therefore, it is palpably clear for negligence and want of due care on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant/ victim has become a HIV affected person. In that perspective, needless to say, the life of the complainant/victim has become a nightmare and as such owing to deficiency of services as per provisions of Section 2(1)(g) read with Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, complainant is entitled to compensation. For determining the compensation to be awarded, it would be profitable to reproduce the provisions of Section 14 (1) (d) of the Act which reproduces below-

“14. Finding of the District Forum.- (1) if, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods, complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the Opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely:

................

(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the Opposite Party”.

The sine qua non for entitlement of compensation is proof of loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the Opposite Party. Once the said conditions are satisfied, the Consumer Forum would have to decide the quantum of compensation to which the consumer is entitled. There cannot be any dispute that the computation of compensation has to be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury. There is a duty cast on a Forum constituted under the Act to take into account all the relevant factors for arriving at the compensation to be paid. Therefore, the assessment of compensation depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

Evidently, the family of the complainant/ victim consists of herself, her husband and her daughter who is now 11 years old and prosecuting her studies. After coming into contact with HIV after blood transfusion the complainant has been completely isolated from the society and cannot mix with anyone. The complainant being victim cannot freely live with her husband and even she cannot give birth of another child at this stage when she was 34 years old. The complainant is unable to look after her daughter’s education, day to day care including food and

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

health or any other activity for the upbringing of her daughter. This kind of deprivation from the society and even from the family members is a really unfortunate and the same cannot be compensated by any amount of money. The complainant/victim being a house wife used to render services to her husband and children. Therefore, while estimating, the ‘services’ of the house wife, a narrow meaning should not be given to the meaning of the word ‘services’ but it should be construed broadly and one has to take into account the loss of ‘personal care and attention’ by the victim to her children, as a mother and to her husband, as a wife. The loss of companionship, care and protection etc, the spouse is entitled to get has to be compensated appropriately. On evaluation of materials on record and having regard to the circumstance of the complainant/victim including her age, the deprivation she had to suffer, the loss of companionship , care and protection which the family members of the complainant are entitled and the pain and sufferings undergone by the complainant and his family members and the suffering of the complainant/victim till the last breathe of her life, we are of the considered opinion that a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- each to be paid by each of the Opposite Parties aggregating Rs. 30,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances would subserve the object of justice. Under compelling circumstances, complainant being a resident of a remote place of North Bengal has to come to a long way at Kolkata to seek justice against the reckless medical negligence of the Opposite Parties and as such entitled to litigation costs which we quantify at Rs. 15,000/- to be paid by each of the Opposite Parties at Rs. 5000/- each. In view of the above discussion, complaint is allowed on contest against Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3 and ex parte against Opposite Party No. 2 with the following directions: (i) the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- each totalling Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakhs) only to the complainant as compensation to be paid within 90 days from date, in default the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date till its realisation; (ii) the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 5000/- each aggregating Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) only to the complainant as costs of litigation.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

22-09-2020 Gramin Yuvak Vikas Shikshan Mandal, Kinhi Naik & Another Versus Shivnarayan Datta Raut & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-08-2020 Suresh Banechand Runwal & Others Versus Datta Kundlik Varghude & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 B. Sunil Kumar & Another Versus Cochin University of Science & Technology, Rep. by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
21-08-2020 Sunil Kumar Bishnoi Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
20-08-2020 Prakash Chandra Versus Ritesh Bhargawa High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-08-2020 Prakash Chandra Versus Ritesh Bhargawa High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-08-2020 Sunil Chillalshetti & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Medical Education Department, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-08-2020 Sunil Agrawal Versus Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Through its Chairman, Naya Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-08-2020 State of Bihar & Others Ram Chandra Singh High Court of Judicature at Patna
30-07-2020 Dinesh Chandra Versus U.O.I. Thru. Addl. Prin. Chief. Conservator of Forest & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-07-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Mojaffar Rahaman Mondal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-07-2020 Sunil N. Godhwani Versus State High Court of Delhi
23-07-2020 Sunil Rathee & Others Versus The State of Haryana & Others Supreme Court of India
13-07-2020 M/s. Vismaya Advertising, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Manager Sunil S. Menon & Another Versus The Intelligence Officer (IB), Department of Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry at Aluva & Others High Court of Kerala
10-07-2020 Dr. Chandra Deo Tyagi Versus Additional District Judge Court No.1 Meerut & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-07-2020 Sunil Yadavrao Beedkar Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
07-07-2020 Kamla Nehru Educational Society Thru Secy. Shri Sunil Dev & Others Versus State of U.P. Thru Secretary Housing & Urban Planning & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
03-07-2020 Satish Chandra & Another Verma Versus Prabhakar Singh Chandel, The Chairman, State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh, H.O. High Court Premises, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-07-2020 K.J. Sunil Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 Ishwar Chander & Another Versus Sunil Saran High Court of Punjab and Haryana
01-07-2020 Sree Gokula Chit & Finance Co (Pvt.) Ltd Versus Sunil Sabu High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Sunil Raj, Corrected As Susil Raj (The Name of the Petitioner typed as “Sunil Raj” in the cause title of the Memorandum of Crl.M.C., Synopsis, Index and petition for Interim Direction and on The Docket is corrected as “Susil Raj” as per order dated 12.11.2019 in CRL.M.A.No.1/2019 in CRL.M.C.No.1797/2017.) Versus Gopan & Another High Court of Kerala
26-06-2020 For the Respondents: Vibhav Prakash Tripathi, Advocate. For the Respondents: G.A., Subhash Chandra Yadav, Advocate. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-06-2020 Chandra Bahadur Rai & Others Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
25-06-2020 Sunil @ Sunil Ashok Gadivaddar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2020 Chandra Marbles Mattannur, Rep By Its Properties C.M. Jeeja Versus C.H. Ramachandran & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Bhabesh Chandra Biswas @ Bhupesh Biswas Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
17-06-2020 Sri Dhiren Chandra Borah Versus Smti Pallavi Kalita High Court of Gauhati
04-06-2020 Sunil Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-06-2020 Ramesh Chandra Mishra Versus Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Puri & Others High Court of Orissa
02-06-2020 Ramesh Chandra Mishra Versus Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Puri & Others High Court of Orissa
01-06-2020 Nagen Chandra Das & Others Versus The State of Assam, Rep. by the Comm. And Secy., Deptt. of Urban Development Deptt., Dispur & Others High Court of Gauhati
20-05-2020 Sunil Kumar Aledia Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 Union of India Versus Narayan Chandra Jena & Another Supreme Court of India
29-04-2020 Suresh Chandra Mishra Versus State of Odisha & Another High Court of Orissa
28-04-2020 Ratan Chandra Gogoi & Others Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
20-04-2020 Umesh Chandra Saxena Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-03-2020 Sunil Kumar Mohanty Versus Kalahandi Anchalika Gramya Bank & Others High Court of Orissa
20-03-2020 Suresh Chandra Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Secretariat Complex, West Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
19-03-2020 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Versus Sharad Yadav Supreme Court of India
13-03-2020 M/s. Fossil India Private Limited, Represented by Sunil Prabhakaran Authorised Signatory Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Audit-5.4), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
12-03-2020 Ramesh Chandra Singh & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-03-2020 Sunil Kumar Mishra Versus State High Court of Delhi
10-03-2020 Chandra Versus State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police Q Branch CID High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Nirpen Chandra Das Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
06-03-2020 Uttam Datta Versus Proprietor, International Trading Co. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-03-2020 Phool Chandra Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
04-03-2020 Kailash Chandra Agarwal & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
04-03-2020 B. Chandra Shekar Versus Kurapati Narenaer High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-02-2020 Ashok Chandra Tamta Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
24-02-2020 Chandra Bhushan Shukla Versus Surmila (Dead) & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-02-2020 Chandra & Others Versus Sri Kakumani Adikesavalu Chetty Charities, Rep. by its Managing Trustees, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 Harish Chandra Singh Versus State of M.P. Through State House Officer, Police Station Ratlam & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
19-02-2020 State Of Uttarakhand Versus Ramesh Chandra Joshi & Another High Court of Uttarakhand
17-02-2020 Sunil Gandhi & Another V/S A.N. Buildwell Private Limited High Court of Delhi
13-02-2020 M/s. Vadim Infrastructure Private Limited. (formerly M/s.VolTech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director R. Rajamanickam Versus M/s. Sunil HiTech Engineers Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Chandra Shekhar Azad Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-02-2020 Rambabu Singh Thakur Versus Sunil Arora & Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Vir Singh Versus Chandra Lata & Another High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Versus State of Kerala Reptd. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
06-02-2020 Sunil Soni & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Rakesh Chandra Savita Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
06-02-2020 Gopal Chandra Mishra & Others Versus The Chairman, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Dumka & Others High Court of Jharkhand
05-02-2020 Chandra Shekhar Dubey & Others Versus Narendra & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
05-02-2020 Nandagopal Chetty & Another Versus Sunil & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Dipak Chandra Dhar, Senior Trackman, Under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway, Silchar Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-02-2020 Govinda Chandra Tiria Versus Sibaji Charan Panda & Others Supreme Court of India
04-02-2020 School Management, St. Xavier Public School Korba Versus Raghuvanshi Chandra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-02-2020 Sunil Kumar, Director, Zephyr Entrance Coaching Centre, Kunnumpuram Versus C.S. Abdul Jabbar Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-02-2020 Dr. Satish Chandra Versus M/s. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
04-02-2020 S. Pugazhendi, President, Subash Chandra Bose Podhu Nala Sangam, Nagapattinam Versus Dy.Superintending Engineer/Public Information Officer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, Madurai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 K. Chandra Sekhar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of for the State of Telangana
01-02-2020 Bipul Chandra Das & Another Versus Rakhi Acharjee & Others High Court of Tripura
31-01-2020 Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others Versus Panna Mahesh Chandra Dave & Another Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Chandra Ratan Bajaj V/S PIO/Dy. Chief General Manager (South), Delhi Transport Corporation (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Others Central Information Commission
30-01-2020 Sunil Polist Versus CPIO /Manager (CRM)/EDMS Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Information Commission
28-01-2020 Biresh Chandra Giri Versus State of Orissa High Court of Orissa
23-01-2020 Arunabh Sinha Versus Panuganti Vijay Chandra Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
23-01-2020 Justice Valluri Seethamahalakshmi Versus Sara Chandra Environ Solutions Pvt Ltd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
22-01-2020 Ganapathy Versus Chandra High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Sunil @ Sumit Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
21-01-2020 Somireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-01-2020 Chandra Kanta Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
20-01-2020 R.C. Sood & Co. Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sunil Bansal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-01-2020 Prakash Chandra Jain Versus Director, Danish Grih Nir Sanstha MYDT Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
10-01-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus Ganesh Chandra Sahoo Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 Dr. Uday Sankar Chatterjee Versus Sankar Chandra Mondal & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-01-2020 Chandra Shekhar Azad Versus Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Assets Recovery Management Branch West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-01-2020 Birat Chandra Dagara Versus Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd. High Court of Orissa
07-01-2020 Shanti Chandra Pal & Another Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-01-2020 Union of India Versus Amal Chandra Hore National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose @ Nethaji Versus State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-12-2019 Khokan Chandra Jana & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-12-2019 Ram Chandra Versus Sirdari High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
19-12-2019 B. Sunil Baliga Versus Sudir High Court of Karnataka
19-12-2019 Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Versus Sadhan Chandra Mondal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-12-2019 Shuba Deep Chandra & Others Versus M/s. Aliens Developers Pvt., Limited & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
17-12-2019 Shweta @ Sakshi Versus Sunil High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
13-12-2019 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Granites, Rep. by its Managing partner Nakka Chandra Shekar, Warangal Versus M/s Kapil Chits (Kakatiya) Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Warangal District & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
12-12-2019 S. Sudarshan Versus G.M. Sunil Kumar High Court of Karnataka