Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/279/2017

K. Anbu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Mohanapriya - Opp.Party(s)

C.D. Johnson - Appellant

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

                                    IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                                              Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                ::      MEMBER

 

CC. No. 279/2017

                                                                    DATED THIS THE 31^st    DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

 K.Anbu,

S/o Krishnan,

Poomarathupallam village,

P.Chetti halli post,

Palacode (TK)

Dharmapuri, District 636 808                                                                 ..Complainant

 

                                             Vs

1.Dr.Mohanapriya,

Gynecologist,

K.G.M. Hospital

D.No. 605/87-5,

M.G.Road, Palacode – 636 808

Dharmapuri District   

 

2. Dr.G.Balakrishnan,

K.G.M. Hospital

D.No. 605/87-5,

M.G.Road, Palacode – 636 808

Dharmapuri District   

 

3. The Director,

S.K.S Hospital India Pvt.Ltd,

S.K.S Hospital Road, Fairlands,

Alagapuram, Salem – 636 004

 

4. The Director,

Vinayaga Mission Hospital Salem,

Sangagiri Main Road,

Veerapandi Post, Salem District                                                           ..Opposite parties                    

 

Counsel for the complainant                               : M/s C.D.Johnson

Counsel for the Opposite parties                         : M/s Dr.B.Cheran

 

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

 

                                                      Docket order

 

       No representation for Complainant. Opposite party present. This complaint is posted today for appearance of counsel for complainant and for taking steps to implead the LRs of complainant(Finally) or for dismissal. When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M,  the complainant was not present  hence,  passed over and  called again at 12.30 noon, then also the complainant has not appeared. Hence we are of the view that keeping the complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.   Hence the complaint is dismissed for default for non-taking of steps. No order as to cost.

       Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                                  PRESIDENT