Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/36/2007

R. Doraikhannu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lifeline Multi Speciality Hospital, Rep. by its Managing Director & 3 Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

V. Balaji & Asso-Complt,

30 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.36/2007

DATED THE 30^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

Mr. R. Doraikhannu,

S/o. Mr. K.R. Raju Naidu,

No.1/178, East Coast Road,

Palavakkam,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                                               .. Complainant.

                                                       - Versus –

1. M/s. Lifeline Multispecialty Hospital,

Represented by its Managing Director,

No.5/639, Old Mahabalipuram Road,

Perungudi,

Chennai – 600 096.

 

2. Dr. J.S. Rajkumar,

Chief Surgeon and Managing Director,

M/s. Lifeline Multispecialty Hospital,

No.5/639, Old Mahabalipuram Road,

Perungudi,

Chennai – 600 096.

 

3. The Medical Superintendent,

M/s. Lifeline Multispecialty Hospital,

No.5/639, Old Mahabalipuram Road,

Perungudi,

Chennai – 600 096.

 

4. Dr. Rajamarthandan,

M/s. Lifeline Multispecialty Hospital,

No.5/639, Old Mahabalipuram Road,

Perungudi,

Chennai – 600 096.                                                                           .. Opposite parties.

 

Complainant                                                  : Party in person

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 3           : M/s. K. Vijayaraghavan

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                 : M/s. Rajinish Pathiyal

4^th Opposite party                                          : Exparte

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 30.06.2022 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

 

No representation for both.   There was no representation for the complainant in person continuously for the past several hearings.

Initially, M/s. V. Balaji, Counsel appeared for the Complainant but subsequently on 22.02.2022, the said Counsel reported ‘No instruction’.   Hence, a notice was sent to the complainant by RPAD through this Commission on 28.03.2022 for her appearance.  The notice sent to the complainant was returned as ‘unclaimed’.   

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of the complainant in person 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 in person.   Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 12.30 P.M. still there was no representation for the complainant in person.  Hence, we are of the view that keeping the consumer complaint pending is of no use as the complainant in person 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