Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/79/2019

K.S.Senthil Kumar S/o Mr.N.Shanmugam,No.2/290,Kurai Thottam,Kallakinaru,Mathappur Post,Palladam Taluk,Thiruppur District-641 664. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.S.K.Sundaramurthy,The Chairman and Managing Director,Lotus Eye Hospitals and Institute,No.770/12, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.Kesavan

07 Dec 2021

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                                         PRESIDENT

                         Tmt. Dr. S. M. LATHA MAHESWARI                                        MEMBER

C.C. No.79/2019

                                                            DATED THE 7^TH  DAY OF DECEMBER  2021

K.S.Senthil Kumar,S/o Mr.N.Shanmugam,

No.2/290, Kurai Thottam,

Kallakinaru, Mathappur Post,

Palladam Taluk,

Thiruppur District,

Pin – 641 664.                                                                                                                       .. Complainant

-Vs-

1.DR.S.K.Sundaramurthy,

   The Chairman and Managing Director,

   Lotus Eye Hospital and Institute,

   No.770/12, Avinashi Road,  Civil Aerodrome Post,

   Coimbatore, Pin.641 014.

 

2.The Lotus Eye Hospital and Institute,

   Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,

   No.770/12, Avinashi Road, Civil Aerodrome Post,

   Coimbatore, Pin.641014..                                                                                                             .. Opposite Parties

 

 Counsel for the complainant                    : M/s. M.Kesavan

 Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2    : M/s. AAV Partners

 

          This consumer complaint coming up before us on 07.12.2019 and  this Commission made the following:-                                             

Docket order

            No representation for Complainant.   Opposite party present. Though the case is posted today for appearance of complainant & for filing proof affidavit of complainant &  or for dismissal.  When the matter was called the counsel for the complainant was not present and proof affidavit was  also not filed.

           Hence the complaint  is dismissed for default for non filing of proof affidavit.  No order as to cost.

                   Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-                                                                         

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                           R.SUBBIAH                        

          MEMBER                                                                                               PRESIDENT