Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/44/2015

Mr.Shahjahan Ali Talukdar, S/o.Late Hamid Ali Talukdar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apollo Speciality Hospital, rep by its M.D. and 6 others - Opp.Party(s)

R.Susila

27 Sep 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                                            Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::      MEMBER

 

 CC.No. 44/2015

 

                                                          DATED THIS THE 27^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

Mr.Shahjahan Ali Talukdar,

S/o Late Hamid Ali Talukdar,

VIII, Hatigaon, Sarudhar Gogoi path

House No.1, P.O,

Hatigaon, Guwahati – 38                                    ..complainant

 

                                               Vs

 

1. Apollo Speciality Hospital,

Reptd.by its Managing Director,

320 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 035

 

2. Apollo Hospitals,

Reptd by its Regional Officer,

Regional office,

Chennai 600 035

 

3. Apollo Hospitals Clinic and Pharmacy,

Reptd by its Managing Director,

Chennai 600 035

 

4. Dr.Raja T, DM (Oncology)

Apollo  Speciality Hospitals, Chennai 600 035

 

5. Dr. Gunavathi, K.N. Junior Consultant,

Apollo Speciality Hospital,

No.320, Mount Road, Chennai 600 035

 

6. Dr.Sangita, Junior Consultant 

Apollo Speciality Hospital,

No.320, Mount Road, Chennai 600 035

 

7. Mr.Veta Ajid, Male Nurse,

Apollo Speciality Hospital,

No.320, Mount Road, Chennai 600 035                      ..opposite parties

Counsel for the complainant                       : M/s Susila

Counsel for the ops 1 to 5                          : M/s.C.Manishankar

 

          This complaint is coming on before us for hearing today, for non-appearance of complainant, this commission made the following order in open court :

 

                                              Docket order

          No representation for complainant. Opposite parties present.

This complaint is pending for appearance of the complainant and for arguments for a long time. While so on 10.6.2022, the learned counsel for the complainant had filed a memo before this commission stating that the complainant viz. Mr.Shahjahan Ali Talukdar died on 27.8.2021, leaving behind him six legal heirs. Therefore, the case was adjourned for taking steps to implead the legal heirs of the deceased complainant.

          But inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, and even after issuance of notice to the counsel for the complainant for appearance, neither the counsel nor the legal heirs of the complainant turned up for taking further steps. The complaint is of the year 2015. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion  that no purpose would be served in keeping the complaint pending further. Accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed for default.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed for default. No cost.

             Sd/-                                                                                                       Sd/-

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                      R.SUBBIAH                  

      MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT