IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE. S. TAMILVANAN, PRESIDENT
THIRU.K. BASKARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
R.P.No.22/2015
(Against the order in C.M.P.No.18/2015 in C.C.No.256/2003 dated 19.06.2015 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (North).
FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017.
Dr.V. Sudarsanan,
AL-112, Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 600 040 Revision Petitioner/Complainant
Vs
1. M/s. Sundaram Medical Foundation
Dr.Rangarajan Memorial Hospital,
Shanthi Colony, 4th Avenue,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 600 040.
2. Dr.P.V. Jayashankar,
Dr.Rangarajan Memorial Hospital,
Shanthi Colony, 4th Avenue,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 600 040.
3. Dr. Ganesh Kamath,
Dr.Rangarajan Memorial Hospital,
Shanthi Colony, 4th Avenue,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 600 040. Respondents 1 to 3 /opposite parties 1 to 3.
Counsel for the Revision Petitioner : M/s. Lavanya Sankar, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 /
Opposite parties 1 to 3: M/s. T.K. Bhaskar, Advocate.
This revision petition coming before us for final hearing on 30.10.2017 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.K. BASKARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) dated 19.06.2015 made in C.M.P.No.18/2015 in C.C.No.256/2003, dismissing the petition.
1. The complainant is the revision petitioner who had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai (North) seeking compensation of various sums attributing medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties which was contested by the opposite parties by filing written version. During the pendency of enquiry in the said complaint the revision petitioner had filed C.M.P.No.18/2015 for a direction to the Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Hospital, Chennai to constitute a medical expert team comprising of certain specialists to appear before the District Forum to tender evidence or in the alternative to obtain opinion from a team of medical expert chosen by the Dean of Rajiv Gandhi Hospital with reference to the medical records available in this case and the questionnaire to be circulated.
2. This petition was resisted by the respondents/opposite parties on the sole ground that a similar petition taken out by the complainant in C.M.P. No.374/2010 was dismissed by the District Forum and the revision petition against the dismissal order was also dismissed by the State Commission and hence the petition could not be entertained.
3. After hearing both sides, the learned District Forum had dismissed the petition holding that the very same petitioner/complainant had filed a petition in C.M.P.No.243/2010 to summon an expert witness from the Government Hospital to give evidence in this case and the same was withdrawn by the petitioner and again the petitioner filed another petition in C.M.P.No.344/2010 for a direction to Dr. Nagendran, Orthopaedic Surgeon to reply to the questionnaire to be filed by the petitioner and that petition was dismissed by the District Forum and the revision petition against the said order of dismissal was also dismissed in R.P.No.89/2011 by the State Commission. Hence, the learned District Forum held that as the earlier two petitions filed by the petitioner for the relief of permission to obtain expert’s opinion by way of constituting a medical team or directing the expert to reply to the questionnaire were dismissed and hence the third petition for the same relief could not be entertained as the same was filed only to drag on the proceedings.
4. Having felt aggrieved over the dismissal of this petition seeking for a direction to the Dean of Rajiv Gandhi Hospital for constituting medical expert team or in the alternative circulating a questionnaire to the 3rd party medical expert to be nominated by the said Dean for obtaining medical opinion the complainant has come before this Commission by way of this revision on the following grounds;-
(a) that the learned District Forum has erred in holding that the earlier two petitions and the present petition are similar in nature whereas they are not so.
(b) that the District Forum has failed to note that the petitioner being the complainant should have to make every endeavour to succeed in his case so as to get the relief and accordingly filed a petition to bring the expert’s opinion on record.
(c) that the learned District Forum has erred in holding that the petitioner was bent upon dragging on the proceedings whereas it is not so. Hence, the learned District Forum has exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in dismissing the petition and hence the order under challenge has to be set aside and the petition in C.M.P.No.18/2015 has to be allowed.
5. Point for consideration is whether the order of the learned District Forum dated 19.06.2015 made in C.M.P.No.18/2015 in C.C.No.256/2013 has to be set aside for the reasons stated in the revision petition?
6. Point:- The following facts are not in dispute between the parties;
(a) That the petitioner/complainant underwent treatment for some bone injury/fracture sustained by him due to fall from height in the first opposite party’s hospital at the hands of the other opposite parties.
(b) The complainant had filed this complaint claiming various sums of compensation under various heads attributing medical negligence arising out of the alleged commissions and omissions on the part of the opposite parties in the matter of providing treatment to the injuries sustained by the petitioner/complainant.
(c) The claim of the complainant was resisted by the opposite parties by way of common written version denying the allegations of any medical negligence on their part by contending that the procedures followed by them were correct and recognised ones and hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
(d) The parties had filed their proof affidavit in the year 2004-2005 besides marking documents.
(e) The petitioner/complainant had filed application in C.M.P.No.243/2010 in the year 2010 for the purpose of issuing summons to an expert from Government Hospital to give evidence in this case and the same was withdrawn by the petitioner.
(f) The very same petitioner filed another petition in C.M.P.No.344/2010 for a direction to one Dr.Nagendiran, Orthopaedic Surgeon to answer the questionnaire to be supplied by the petitioner and that was dismissed by the District Forum and the Revision Petition filed against the order of the dismissal was also dismissed by the State Commission in R.P.No.89/2011.
(g) Finally, this petition in C.M.P.No.18/2015 came to be filed in the year 2015 after 12 years from the date of complaint.
(h) The learned District Forum has dismissed the C.M.P.No.18/2015 on the ground that the previous two petitions for the similar relief were dismissed by the said Forum and the orders had become final and as such a 3rd petition seeking similar relief was not maintainable.
7. We do not find either any illegality, impropriety or failure to exercise jurisdiction vested or exceeding jurisdiction vested committed by the learned District Forum in passing the order under challenge in revision.
8. Though the present petition under C.M.P.No.18/2015 is couched in different words, the relief sought to be obtained is nothing but the same as the one sought for in the previous petitions. The relief intended to be obtained by the petitioner/complainant in all these three petitions is to bring an expert opinion in the form of admissible and lawful evidence for the purpose of substantiating the allegations of medical negligence attributed against the respondents/opposite parties as the opposite parties in turn denied the complaint allegations. Hence, we do not find any reason or ground to hold that the reasoning recorded by the learned District Forum in dismissing the petition is perverse or without evidence or against any evidence.
9. Moreover, we cannot loose sight of the fact that the learned District Forum was conscious about the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner/complainant in taking steps to bring medical expert evidence on record. Admittedly, the complaint was filed in the year 2003 and the written version was filed thereafter and even proof affidavit of both parties were filed and 54 documents on the side of the petitioner/complainant and 33 documents on the side of the opposite parties were also marked and all these were filed during the year 2010. In spite of this factual situation, we cannot understand as to why the petitioner/complainant had slept over his right to adduce expert evidence in support of his complaint allegations. It has to be borne in mind that the very object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to provide speedy and inexpensive remedy to the consumers. But, in this case, a consumer who is not a layman but a doctor (either a Medical Doctor or Doctorate holder) should have been prompt and diligent in exercising his right. But, here in our case, the complaint was filed in the year 2003 by the very same petitioner and the petition in C.M.P.No.18/2015 was filed in the year 2015 and the impugned order was passed on 19.06.2015.
10. In the light of the discussion held above, we are of the view that the order under challenge need not be interfered and the point is answered accordingly.
11. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs in this revision petition.
K. BASKARAN, S. TAMILVANAN,
JUDICIAL MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
