{"id":138348,"date":"2004-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004"},"modified":"2018-12-25T10:53:29","modified_gmt":"2018-12-25T05:23:29","slug":"dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004","title":{"rendered":"Dr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n
Dr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004<\/div>\n
  \n \n \n \n \n \n NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n  \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nNATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL\nCOMMISSION \n\n   NEW\n  DELHI \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n  FIRST\nAPPEAL NO. 182 OF 2000 \n\n \n\n(From\nthe order dated\n6.4.2000 in Original Case No. 26\/95 of the \n\n \n\nState\nCommission, Madhya Pradesh) \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nDr. P.S.Hardia  Appellant \n\n \n\n Versus \n\n \n\nKedarnath\nSethia  Respondent \n\n \n\n  \n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n BEFORE: \n\n \n\n HONBLE\nMR. JUSTICE M.B.SHAH,\nPRESIDENT \n\n \n\n MRS.\nRAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the\nAppellant :  Mr.\nM.M.Asudani & \n\n \n\nMr. A.P.Dhamija, \n\n \n\nAdvocates. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the\nRespondent :  Mr.\nVivek Agarwal, \n\n \n\nAdvocate. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n  \u00a0\n\n \n\n DATE:   20th\n JULY , 2004  \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n  \u00a0\n\n O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
  \u00a0<\/p>\n
 M.B.SHAH, J. PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
  \u00a0<\/p>\n
  \u00a0<\/p>\n
  By
\njudgement and order dated 6.4.2000 in original case No.26\/1995, the Madhya
\nPradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, arrived at a
\nconclusion that despite required advance glaucoma filtering surgery the
\nappellant performed RKD Operation (Radial Keradiathermy)
\nby which complainant lost sight in his right eye. For this purpose, the State Commission
\nobserved as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 We regret to say that the opposite
\nparty has tried to give evasive reply for the reasons best known to him. He has nowhere in categorical words denied
\nthat the allegations of the complainant that RKD was not required for glaucoma
\nor that subsequent filtering operation was also not required. He has also not denied that the complainant
\ngradually lost eye sight. He has also
\nnot tried to explain as to why filtering surgery was required just after three
\ndays of RKD operation. The opposite
\nparty has also not refuted this allegation of the complainant that the
\noperations were performed without his consent.
\nCopies of consent letters obtained for two operations could have been
\nfiled, or if operations were performed without his consent specific reasons and
\ncircumstances should have been explained.\n<\/p>\n
Simply saying  to treat him at his own risk under expressive
\nconsent does not absolve the opposite party of the responsibility of
\ntaking consent when there was no urgency for performing RKD operation within
\nminutes. There is no plea of mishap or
\nmisadventure or difference of opinion or error of judgement. Hence we are constrained to say that the opposite party has been trying to misguide us by giving
\nself-contradictory and evasive replies, right from the very beginning.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
Therefore, the State Commission allowed
\nthe complaint and awarded compensation of Rs. 1 lakh with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the
\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n
  That order is challenged by filing this
\nAppeal.\n<\/p>\n
  On 17.4.2001, this Commission granted
\nstay order against the execution of the Award on the condition that appellant
\nshall pay a sum of Rs.50,000\/- to the complainant
\n(Respondent) within eight weeks thereof.\n<\/p>\n
It is admitted that the aforesaid amount was paid to the
\ncomplainant.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Thereafter,
\nthe matter was adjourned repeatedly for hearing and when the matter was heard
\non 24.5.2004, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
\nwould tender written submissions within a period of one weak. No such written submissions are filed and
\nhence, respondent has also not tendered such submissions.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  At the time of hearing of this appeal,
\nlearned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is an expert
\nOphthalmologist and specialist in such surgery and there was no error or
\nmistake committed by him for operating myopia (RKD) before removing glaucoma. Being expert, he arrived at a conclusion that
\npain and redness in right eye were because of hypermyopia in excess. Therefore, first operation was required to be
\nperformed for hyprmyopia.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  As
\nagainst this, it is the say of the Complainant that he was a Lecturer in
\nEconomic at   G.B.H.  School, Chirmiri, and because of the eye
\ntrouble, he was required to get it checked from various Ophthalmologists. Fro
\nestablishing his case, the Complainant has produced on record the entire
\nhistory of medical repairs and treatment. It is his say that he was suffering
\nfrom glaucoma in his right eye but was having 100% eye sight with the use of
\nglasses in both the eyes. In his affidavit before the State Commission, he has
\nstated that he got his both eyes checked on 13.1.1993 from Dr.Pravinchandra
\nS. Patel at   Raipur. The original prescription
\ngiven by Dr.Patel is also produced on record. And, thereafter, he obtained glasses of both
\nthe eyes having +3.75 and +3.00. For
\nthat he has relied upon Ex.E-2. Subsequently, he got his eyes examined at National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., Jyoti Nagar, Andhara
\nPradesh on 3.8.1993 where his younger borther-in-law,
\nDr. Pradeep Suhane was employed. The eye specialist had traced
\nincreased tension in both the eyes and found the symptoms of glaucoma
\ndisease and has prescribed the medicine, optipres.
\nAgain he got himself
\nexamined on 7.10.1993 by an eye specialist, Dr.B.S.Jain
\nat   Maharani  Laxmi  Bai  Medical  College,   Jhansi. Dr.Jain after examining the Complainant,
\nadvised to stop using the medicine optipres for fifteen days so that glaucoma disease could
\nbe correctly checked. That document is also produced on record.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 As the Complainant found that
\ntension was increasing in his eyes, he contacted another eye specialist of Chirmiri on 15.12.1993. Thereafter, on 20.12.1993 he went to   Raipur for getting his eyes
\nchecked by Dr. B.P.Sharma. On that day, when Dr. B.P.Sharma was not available, he was examined by Dr. I.S.Shukla, Ex.Professor and Head
\nof Department of Eye Section, D.K.Hospital,   Raipur. He was also
\nexamined by Dr. Prabhat K. Mukherjee,
\nProfessor and Head of Eye Department of Pandit Jawahar
\nLal Nehru Memorial Medical College,   Raipur, which had mentioned
\nthat Complainant was under treatment for glaucoma and the vision with spects as 6 x 6 and the tension increased. Eye numbers were
\nagain got checked on 30.7.1994 and were found +3.75 in the right eye and +3 in
\nthe left eye, so that he was having 100% eye sight with spectacles.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 He has further pointed out
\nthat for getting treatment he had visited Dr.Hardia
\nAdvance Eye Surgery and Research Centre,   Indore on 22.9.1994. For
\nthat purpose he has produced on record a booklet provided by the Respondent
\nwhich is Ex.E-11. The relevant part of E-11 is as under:\n<\/p>\n
 Pain in R.E., F.B. sensation,
\nwatering Redness, Heavyness, more in R.E. using
\nglasses for year present glasses change 1 month back, using Pilocarpine.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
He has also averred
\nthat the Respondent had examined the eyes of the Complainant and the eye sight
\nof his both the eyes was found 100% with spectacles and that is also mentioned
\nin treatment booklet. The Respondent advised for operation. Thereafter,
\nRespondent directed the Petitioner to get the blood sugar and other tests
\nconducted, which were conducted. After completion of pathological
\ninvestigation. The operation was performed on his right eye on 23.9.1994 and,
\nthereafter, on 26.9.1994, another operation, i.e. Filtering operation was
\nperformed. That is mentioned in the booklet provided by the Respondent. It is his say that the first operation was
\nRKD and the second operation was for Glaucoma. Necessary documents are produced
\non record.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  It
\nis the say of the Complainant that on 7.12.1994 he got his eyes examined by Dr.Y.D.Aggarwal, Ashok Nagar, Distt.
\nGuna, who
\nfound loss of eye sight in the right eye. Dr. Aggarwal
\nfound the tension of right eye as 6.1, below normal. To get it further checked,
\nthe Complainant went to   Jabalpur and was examined by Dr.R.K.Mishra who also found that there was loss of eye
\nsight of the right eye. These documents are also produced on record. The same
\nwas confirmed by Dr.Prabhat K. Mukherjee
\nof   Raipur. The Complainant,
\nthereafter, served notice for the deficiency in service by the Respondent. Loss of eye sight was got further confirmed
\nby examination report of Shankar Netralaya,
\n  Madras. That report is dated 30.4.1995
\nwhich is produced on record as Ex.P-34.\n<\/p>\n
It is his contention that RKD operation is performed only in (-) Miopia whereas no symptoms of Miopia
\nwere found during the check up of the Complainant by the Respondent. Despite this, for no justifiable reasons,
\nexcept for business, Opposite Party has performed two operations  one RKD and,
\nthereafter, within two days, filtering for glaucoma.\n<\/p>\n
  It
\nis the say of the Complainant that he was posted as Lecturer in Economics at
\nG.B.H. School, Chirmiri and that he was aged about 53
\nyears and that due to loss of vision in his right eye, he would suffer agony in
\nthe remaining life as well as it would create difficulties in studying and
\nreading. Therefore, he has claimed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs
\nas compensation. The aforesaid affidavit along with documentary evidence was
\nconsidered by the State Commission. It appears from the observation made by the
\nState Commission that the Respondent was reluctant to file proper written
\nversion. However, after appreciating the evidence which was produced on record,
\nexamining the booklet supplied by the Respondent, the State Commission held
\nthat the Opposite Party had not denied that the main ailment of the Complainant
\nwas glaucoma. No notes of performance of operation on 23.9.1994 and 26.3.1994
\nwere produced on record. No
\nchronological history of operation, no chronology of treatment given, no chronological history of nursing done was produced on
\nrecord. In the booklet issued by the Harida Centre
\nafter the note of hypermyopia and RKD, there is a
\nnote of glaucoma filtering surgery.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 It cannot be disputed that
\nRKD operation, i.e. to say, operation for removing myopia so that spects may not be required is not must. As such filtering of water, i.e. glaucoma
\noperation was required to be performed first. May be that appellant may be
\nexpert, but that
\nwould not give privilege in not maintaining or producing relevant record or
\npreventing from admitting the mistake committed by him. Considering all these
\naspects the State Commission rightly arrived at the conclusion that there was deficiency in service
\nand negligence in not performing the operation for glaucoma first and not
\nproducing the necessary record before the State Commission.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  After
\nthe judgment was reserved and before the order could be pronounced, the
\nPetitioner had sent much more delayed written submissions including the extra
\nliterature to reiterate that RKD operation is a safest method to treat
\nHyperopia. Those submissions are also taken into consideration. In this
\nsubmissions Petitioner also reiterated that he is an eminent Ophthalmologist
\nand an expert in the field and has published a number of articles. With regard
\nto his qualifications and expertise, the Opposite Party has not disputed.
\nHowever, from the medical literature which he had sent, we would quote some
\nportions which indicates that when a person is suffering from Glaucoma, RKD is
\nthe contra indication. The relevant part from the article written on Hyperopia,
\nConductive Keratoplasty by Manolette R Roque, M.D. which the Appellant had referred to is as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Contraindications: A few
\ncontraindications exist for CK. Basic criteria that a patient must meet to be
\nconsidered a good candidate for CK include the following:\n<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
At least 21 years <\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
No drastic changes in vision or
\neyeglass  <\/p>\n
 prescription within the past year.\n<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
No eye conditions, including severe
\ndryness,  <\/p>\n
corneal dystrophy,  glaucoma, herpes of the eye,  <\/p>\n
 aggressive keloid formation, and keratoconus.\n<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
No physical conditions, including
\ndiabetes,  <\/p>\n
 pregnancy
\nor breastfeeding, and autoimmune or  <\/p>\n
 vascular
\ndiseases.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 It appears that the Doctor of repute has ignored these contra
\nindications and performed the RKD without operating for glaucoma.\n<\/p>\n
 Further, RKD treatment, as per the medical literature is to some
\nextent cosmetic operation so that spects are avoided.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  A
\nreport by the American Academy of Ophthalmology Ophthalmic Technology
\nAssessment Committee, George O.Waring, III, MD,
\npublished in Ophthalmology July 1993, Vol.1000, 1103-1115, on the subject
\nRadial Keratotomy for Myopia, which is
\nobtained from the internet, a portion of which
\nreads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
The potential of this
\nprocedure to render good visual acuity without glasses or contact lenses must
\nbe weighed against its known risks. Refractive side effects include
\nanisometropia (imbalanced vision between the two eyes), increased astigmatism, and symptomatic
\npresbyopia (loss of near focus in middle life). Other common, usually less
\nsevere side effects include prolonged unstable vision and mild glare. Uncommon,
\nbut potentially binding, complications include ocular infection and traumatic
\nrupture of the cornea at the keratotomy scars. The goal of radial keratotomy is
\nto correct the refractive error of myopia. It also may serve to improve
\ncosmetic appearance if the patient does not require glasses after surgery. It
\nis elective surgery because other alternatives are available for the management
\nof myopia, including conventional glasses and contact lenses. In addition,
\nother refractive keratoplasty procedures are available, including excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy, keratomileusis and epikeratoplasty.
\nSelection of the best alternative for the management of myopia in an
\nindividual patient should be based on the patient’s personal needs and on the
\nophthalmologist’s and patient’s assessment of the risks and benefits of the
\navailable modes of correction.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Further, with regard to the
\naward of compensation, it cannot be said that it is on higher side. In the
\nresult, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 …..J.\n<\/p>\n
 (M.B.SHAH) <\/p>\n
 PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 .\n<\/p>\n
 (RAJYALAKSHMI
\nRAO) <\/p>\n
 MEMBER <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Dr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI \u00a0 \u00a0 FIRST APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2000 (From the order dated 6.4.2000 in Original Case No. 26\/95 of the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh) \u00a0 \u00a0 Dr. P.S.Hardia Appellant Versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138348","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-25T05:23:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-25T05:23:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2069,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004\",\"name\":\"Dr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-25T05:23:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-25T05:23:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004","datePublished":"2004-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-25T05:23:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004"},"wordCount":2069,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004","name":"Dr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-25T05:23:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-p-s-hardia-vs-kedarnath-sethia-on-20-july-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. P.S.Hardia vs Kedarnath Sethia on 20 July, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138348","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138348"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138348\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138348"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138348"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138348"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}