Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/22/2008

D.Thangappan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ezhil Hospital, Rep. by its Partner, Dr. Selvasankari & 5 Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

M.Balasubramanian & Asso.,

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                        PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                           MEMBER

                     

C.C. No.28/2009

DATED THE 09^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

A. Mathimaran,

No.6/13, Sheela Nagar,

1^st Link Street,

Madipakkam,

Chennai – 600 091.                                                                              .. Complainant.

                                                       - Versus –

1. VIJAYAM HOSPITALS & FERTILITY CENTRE,

Represented by Dr. P. Rajalakshmi,

No.70, Medavakkam Main Road,

Keelkattalai, (Next to Subhiksha, Keelkattalai),

Chennai – 600 117. 

 

2. Dr. P. Rajalakshmi,

Proprietor,

Vijayam Hospitals & Fertility Centre,

No.70, Medavakkam Main Road,

 Keelkattalai, (Next to Subhiksha, Keelkattalai),

Chennai – 600 117. 

 

3. Dr. Subbiah, M.S. (Ortho),

Vijayam Hospitals & Fertility Centre,

No.70, Medavakkam Main Road,

 Keelkattalai, (Next to Subhiksha, Keelkattalai),

Chennai – 600 117.                                                                        .. Opposite parties.

 

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

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

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party         : M/s. J. Dharmarajan

 

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 09.09.2022 for appearance of complainant and for continuation of arguments or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for the complainant.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 were present and ready for arguments. 

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of the complainant and for continuation of arguments or for dismissal.  

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M. there was no representation for the complainant.  Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 01.00 P.M. still, there was no representation for the complainant and for continuation of arguments.  Hence, we are of the view that keeping the consumer complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, the consumer complaint is dismissed for default.   No cost.

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT