Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/262/2018

R.Paramasivam, S/o Ramasamy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kurinji Hospitals Private Limited, Rep by its Manager and 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. T. Dharani

28 Apr 2023

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

 

F.A. No.262/2018

 

(Against the Order dt.03.04.2018 made in C.C. No.46/2014 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Salem)

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023

 

R. Paramasivam,

S/o. Mr. Ramasamy,

No.93/1, Annai Indra Nagar,

Near Law College,

Chinnakollapatti,

Salem - 8.                                                                                                                                        .. Appellant / Complainant.

 

-Versus-

1. Kurinji Hospital Private Limited,

Represented by its Manager,

Near 5 Road,

Salem. 

 

2. Dr. Jayaraman,

Clo. Kurinji Hospital,

 Near 5 Road,

Salem. 

 

3. Dr. Manimaran,

Clo. Kurinji Hospital,

 Near 5 Road,

Salem.                                                                                                                                     .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

  

Counsel for Appellant / Complainant             : M/s. T. Dharani

Counsel for Respondents / Opposite parties : M/s. I. C. Vasudevan

      

              This appeal coming up before us on 28.04.2023 for appearance of both parties, for filing written arguments of both parties and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

 

Docket Order

 

       No representation for both parties.  

This appeal is posted today for appearance of both parties, for filing written arguments of both parties and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal. 

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

Hence, this appeal is dismissed for default.    No costs.

 

 

               

                Sd/-                                                                                              Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                        R.SUBBIAH                       

             MEMBER                                                                                     PRESIDENT