Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/26/2024

PUBLIC HEALTH CENTRE - Complainant(s)

Versus

MURARIVENKATESH - Opp.Party(s)

V BALAJI, K.GANESAN AND GANESH ARNALA-rev.ptnr

30 Oct 2024

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH... PRESIDENT        

 

Revision Petition No.26 of 2024

(Against the Order, dated 21.11.2023, passed in C.M.P. No.98 of 2022

 in C.C. No.30/2022, on the file of  the DCDRC, Chennai (South))

                                                    

                               Orders pronounced on:     30.10.2024

 

1.M/s. Public Health Centre,

Rep. by its Honorary Secretary.

2. Dr. R. Senthilnathan,

Paediatric Surgeon at

M/s. Public Health Centre.

3. Dr. A. Chandrasekaran,

Anaesthesiologist at

M/s. Public Health Centre,

All 1 to 3 are situated at

No.174, Lake View Road,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.         … Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties.

 

vs.

Murarivenkatesh,

S/o. Mr. Babu Rao,

No.14, Vathiyar Thottam 1^st Street,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                  … Respondent/Complainant.                   

             For Rev. Petitioners  :  M/s. V. Balaji.

             For Respondent       :  M/s. R. Asokan.

     This Revision Petition came up for final hearing on 03.10.2024 and, after hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Commission passes the following:-

ORDER

R.Subbiah, J. (President)                                  

        The revision petitioners herein, who are Opposite Parties in C.C. No.30 of 2022 that has been filed by the respondent herein as complainant before the DCDRC, Chennai-South, challenge the order passed by the District Commission in allowing the Miscellaneous Petition/CMP No.98 of 2022 filed by the complainant, seeking to refer his son/Master Murari Trinath Karthikeya to the Medical Board at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, P.H. Road, Chennai-03, for determining the percentage of disability. 

 

       2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that what the complainant sought for was referring his son to the Medical Board to determine the percentage of disability, but, the impugned order also directing to assess the ‘causative factor’ is clearly beyond the scope of the petition and hence, the said portion is liable to be set aside.

               3. Heard the other side.

 

               4. After considering the arguments and perusing the materials including the impugned order, we are unable to accede to the plea of the revision petitioners for more than one reason.

               Firstly, this is a case of medical negligence wherein the Board Opinion regarding the causative factor would undoubtedly benefit the Commission to better understand/appreciate the facts and issues involved. Secondly, when the causative factor and the disability are inter-connected, it cannot be said that the direction issued in that regard is beyond the scope of the petition.  Thirdly, whatever be the opinion of the Board, the Revision Petitioners always have the opportunity to file their objections against the same and also advance their counter-arguments at the time of final-hearing as well.

 

 

 

       5. In that view of the matter, we do not find any substance or merit in the Revision Petition and it is accordingly, dismissed.    

                                                                                 R.SUBBIAH, J.

                                                                                 PRESIDENT.

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/OCTOBER/2024.