KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 793/06 & 810/2000 COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 29.5.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT APPEAL 793/2006 Dr.Biju J.Mathews, Urologist -- APPELLANT Dr.S.M.C.S.I Medical College Hospital, Karakonam.P.O, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.M.c.Suresh) Vs. 1. M.Satheesh, Erickal Kaleekal, Nangyarkulangara.P.O, Harippad, Alappuzha Dt. 2. V.S.M.Hospital -- RESPONDENTS reptd. by the Managing Director, V.S.M.Hospital, Thattarambalam, Mavelikara. ( R1 By Adv.Philip M.Prasad & R2 by Adv.M.S.Vijayachandra Babu) APPEAL NO.810/2006 V.S.M.Hospital Thattarambalam, Mavelikara -- APPELLANT Alappuzha Dt. Reptd. by Administrative officer. (By Adv.M.S.Vijayachandrababu) Vs. 1. M.Satheesh, Erickal Kaleekal, Nangyarkulangara.P.O, Harippad, Alappuzha Dt. 2. Dr.Biju.J.Mathew, -- RESPONDENTS (Urologist, V.S.M.Hospital) Dr.S.M.C.S.I Medical College Hospital, Karakonam.P.O, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram. COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant in 793/06 is the second opposite party Doctor and the appellant in A.810/06 is the first opposite party/Hospital in OP.3/05 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1.20,000/- with interest at 9% to the complainant and cost of Rs.600/-. The matter relates to the alleged non removal of the Ureteric stone after conducting Uretero –Reno Scopy under general anesthesia by the second opposite party at the first opposite party hospital. It is the case of the complainant that after undergoing the above procedure, the same symptoms re-surfaced and on subsequent consultation another Ultrasound Scan was taken and it was found that the stone is located in another spot and that the second opposite party had not in fact removed the stone. 2. The evidence seen adduced is the testimony of PW1, Exts. A1 to A6. 3. It is the contention of the appellant that the application filed for examining the second opposite party/Doctor was dismissed by the Forum, on the ground that the petition was filed by the first opposite party to examine the second opposite party as witness. The counsel for the appellant in A.793/06 has contended that the appellant/opposite parties had not claimed that the stone was removed on conducting the procedure. It was found that the left ureteric orifice was oedematous and no stone was seen. It was possible that the stone has passed out through the urine. It is his contention that the stone if any might have subsequently developed. All the same they have sought for an opportunity to adduce evidence as the order of the Forum dismissing the petition was illegal. 4. We find that the Forum ought to have allowed the opposite parties to adduce evidence. The impression of the Forum that one opposite party cannot apply for examining another opposite party is evidently erroneous. Further, the first opposite party had only sought for permission to examine the second opposite party. We find that the opposite parties ought to have taken up the matter before this Commission at the time. Hence, there is lapse on the part of the opposite parties also. 5. Further, we find that there is no statement in the affidavit or in the complaint as to where he underwent treatment further for removal of the stone or as to whether the stone was removed at any other hospital. 6. In the circumstances, we find that the matter requires a detailed consideration. The order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellants pay a sum of Rs.5000/- each to the complainant towards costs or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of costs, the Forum shall permit the parties to adduce further evidence and dispose of the matter on merits. 7. The case stands posted before the Forum on 30/7/2010. The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum along with a copy of this order at the earliest. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT s/L | 
