Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/118/2017

1.Dr.Nagappan M.S.(ORTHO) D.Ortho - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Mr.David Tyagaraj Advocate, S/o. MM. Tyagaraj, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.Balaji

24 Jan 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                   ::     PRESIDENT                       

                  Tmt.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                            ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 118/2017

  (Against the Order dt.23.06.2016 made in C.C. No.51/2014 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (North)

                         DATED THE 24^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2022

 

1. Dr. Nagappan M.S. (Ortho) D. Ortho,

Orthopedic Surgeon,

No.4, Thirumurthy Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai - 17.

 

2. M/s. Bharathi Rajaa Hospital & Research Centre,

No.11, Madley Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

3. Dr. C. Natesan, M.D.F.C.G.P.F.R.S.H. (London),

Managing Director,

M/s. Bharathi Rajaa Hospital & Research Centre,

No.11, Madley Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

4. Dr. Mrs. Vasanthi, M.B.B.S., D.G.O.,

Medical Director,

M/s. Bharathi Rajaa Hospital & Research Centre,

No.11, Madley Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                            .. Appellants /Opposite parties 1, 2, 4, 5

 

- Versus -

1. Mr. David Tyagaraj, M.A. B.L.,

Advocate,

S/o. Mr. M.M. Tyagaraj,

No.38, 1^st Street,

Gill Nagar,

Choolaimedu,

Chennai – 600 009.                                                                        .. 1^st Respondent /Complainant.

 

 

2. Dr. Satish, M.S.,

No.18, 3^rd Lane, Habibullah Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

3. The Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Divisional Office at:

No.10, 36, Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 034.                       …  2^nd & 3^rd Respondents / 3^rd & 6^th Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Appellants /Opposite parties 1, 2, 4, 5      : M/s. V. Balaji

Counsel for 1^st Respondent /Complainant                   : M/s. V.S. Venkatesh

2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party                            : Given up

Counsel for 3^rd Respondent / 3^rd Opposite party          : M/s. Nageshwaran & Narichania                          

 

This appeal coming before us for on 24.01.2022 for filing of Joint Memo of Compromise and this Commission made the following order in open court :-

ORDER

            Both sides’ counsels are present and heard through video conferencing. A joint memo of compromise signed by both sides was filed stating that the entire award amount has been paid by the appellants/apposite parties and thereby nothing survives in the appeal and hence the appeal may be disposed of accordingly. The joint memo of compromise is perused and recorded.     

       On perusal of records, we find that the 1^st respondent/ complainant filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 6 alleging medical negligence followed by deficiency in service before the District Commission and  after hearing both sides the  District Commission passed the order against the opposite parties 1,2,4,5 & 6 directing them jointly and severally to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.6,18,807/- towards medical expenses incurred by the complainant and another sum of Res.1,00,000/-towards loss of income besides costs of Rs.20,000/- with default interest at the rate of  9% per annum till the date of payment and dismissed the complaint as against the 3^rd opposite party.   Aggrieved over the order of the District Commission, the opposite parties 1, 2, 4 and 5 have preferred this appeal.  

              Today, when the appeal was taken- up for hearing through vedio conferencing, a joint memo of compromise was filed stating that the entire award amount was paid by the appellants/ opposite parties 1, 2, 4, and 5 to the complainant/1^st respondent and nothing survives in the said appeal and hence the appeal may be disposed of accordingly and the mandatory deposit may be refunded to the appellants/ opposite parties 1, 2, 4 and 5. 

            In view of the above stated joint memo of compromise, this appeal is disposed of accordingly.

            The said joint memo of compromise shall form a part of this order. 

            The Registry is directed to discharge the mandatory deposit, if any, in favour of the appellants/opposite parties 1, 2, 4 & 5 with accrued interest thereon.  

            

 

                   Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                            R.SUBBIAH                        

           MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT