SOUMYA BHATTACHARYA vs SUDHIR KUMAR THAKUR & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 01.09.2025 Judgment delivered on: 18.09.2025 + CM(M) 757/2022 & CM APPL. 33618/2022 SOUMYA BHATTACHARYA .....Petitioner versus SUDHIR KUMAR THAKUR & ORS. .....Respondent Memo of Appearance For the Petitioner: Mr. Sugata Shankar Roy, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Thakur, Mr. Rishi Raj and Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocates for R-1 to R-3 Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Mr. Prabir Basu and Ms. Rupali S. Ghosh, Advocates for R-4 & R-5 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN JUDGMENT MANOJ JAIN, J 1. It needs to be seen whether Dr. Sudhir Kumar Thakur (respondent no. 1 herein) has any locus to file consumer complaint in question or not. 2. Let me take note of the relevant facts. 3. Mr. Shambhu Nath Thakur (younger brother of the complainant) was an engineer who graduated from BITS, Pilani. He had been working as General Manager in M/s Texmaco Ltd. He was suffering from multiple black patches on his skin and was bleeding also and, therefore, the concerned doctor, on the rolls of his employer, advised him certain tests/investigations which were conducted on 07.04.2010. Test report indicated platelet counts to be 17000/cmm and since such counts were Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL CM(M) 757/2022 Page 1 Signing Date:18.09.2025 15:59:38 drastically below the normal range, he was immediately rushed to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, 58, Canal Circular Road, Kolkata (OP No. 1 in the complaint). 4. According to complainant, though there was immediate need of platelet transfusion, no attention was given to the same and even the admission in the hospital was delayed by more than one hour as valuable time was wasted by the hospital authorities in demanding advance payment. The patient was a known case of h