KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

    REVISION PETITION:60/2009

                             JUDGMENT DATED:19..01..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                      : MEMBER

1.Immaculate Heart of Mary Hospital,

  Bharananganam, Repd. by its

  Administrator.

2.Sister Dr.Bridget Kolath,

  Dept of Paediatrics, IHM Hospital,                  : APPELLANTS

  Bharananganam.

3.Sister Dr.Rosamma,

  Dept of Gynaecology, IHM Hospital,

Bharananganam.

(By Adv:Sreevaraham.G.Satheesh)

        Vs.

1.Likitha George,

  Ampattukunnel house,

  Pathampuzha.P.O.

                                                                           : RESPONDENTS

2.Sister Mary,

  Nursing Superintendent,

    IHM Hospital,

  Bharananganam.

(By Adv: Sri.R.Narayan)

                                  JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The Revision Petitioners are the opposite parties, the hospital and the doctors disputing the order of the Forum in I.A.617/09 rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to refer the matter to an expert doctor to obtain an opinion as to whether a prima-facie case exists.  The Forum dismissed the application holding that the decision has no retrospective effect.

2. The counsel for the Revision Petitioner has pointed out that the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab 2005 VI SCC (1) it itself has been stressed that in matters involving medical negligence, the matter should be subjected to a pre-cognizance scrutiny by an expert doctor, and the same has been reiterated in Martin F D’Souza Vs. Mohammed Ishfaq 2009 III SCC (1).

3. It was pointed out that the opposite parties/revision petitioners had entered appearance and filed version and the trial commenced.  The complainant has filed proof affidavit.  It was because in the above circumstances that the Forum rejected the application to refer the matter to an expert or expert committee for opinion as to the existence of a prima-facie case.

4. We find that the Supreme Court in Martin D’souza’s case (op.cit) has not specified that all existing cases of medical negligence pending before the Forums/Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act has to undergo the above indicated procedure.  Jacob Mathew’s case (op.cit) was with respect to taking cognizance in criminal matters.  Hence we find that there is no merit in the contention of the Revision Petitioners.  Hence the order of the Forum is sustained.  The Revision Petition is dismissed.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

VL.