Anirudh Aggarwal vs Dharam Bir Bhatia

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, affirming the State Commission's ruling that the appellant, a dentist, was not negligent in the treatment of the complainant's daughter under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court noted that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence of negligence or pain suffered, including the absence of expert testimony to support claims of inadequate treatment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, maintaining the lower courts' findings regarding the lack of merit in the complaint.