Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/21/2014

RAVI AGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

GLOBAL HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CITY, THE CHAIRMAN - Opp.Party(s)

M. CHIDAMBARAM

10 Jun 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.21/2014

DATED, THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

Ravi Agarwal,

S/o. Late Shyam Lal Agarwal,

Door No.15, VGP Gokul Nagar,

1^st Main Road, 2^nd Cross Street,

Perumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 100.

 

Now residing at:-

No.24, Gayathri Nagar,

Sembakkam,

Chennai – 600 073.                                                                               .. Complainant.

                                                       - Versus –

1. The Chairman,

M/s. Global Hospital & Health City,

No.439, Cheran Nagar,

Perumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 100.

 

2. Dr. Thirumalai Ganesan,

Urologist,

M/s. Global Hospital & Health City,

No.439, Cheran Nagar,

Perumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 100.

 

(Now working as Consultant Urologist in

Apollo Hospital No.21, Greams Lane,

Off Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006).

 

3. Dr. Dinesh Nayak,

Neurologist,

M/s. Global Hospital & Health City,

No.439, Cheran Nagar,

Perumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 100.

 

(Now working as Consultant Neurologist in

Fortis Malar Hospital, No.52, 1^st Main Road,

Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020).                                        .. Opposite parties.

 

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

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party         : M/s. Dharmarajan

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party        : M/s. Abdul, Anand & Vinodh Associates

3^rd Opposite party                                 : Exparte

 

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 10.06.2022 for appearance of the complainant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

Docket Order

 

When the matter came on 27.12.2021, there was no representation for the complainant. Hence, notice dt.13.04.2022 sent to the complainant through this Commission was returned with the postal endorsement as ‘unclaimed’. The Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party was directed to send private notice to the complainant which was served to the complainant for which, AOS dt.06.06.2022 was filed in this Commission.  But the complainant has not chosen to appear before this Commission.

Finally, the matter has been posted today for appearance of the complainant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal.  When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., there was no representation for the complainant. Hence, passed over twice and called again at 11.45 A.M. and 01.00 P.M., still there was no representation for the complainant.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 was present and reported that they were ready for 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