Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/306/2014

S.N. MOTHILAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

N. DHANASEKAR - Opp.Party(s)

B. Cheran & M.Nagarethinam-applt

11 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                      PRESIDENT

Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                           MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.306/2014

(Against order in CC.NO.61/2005 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South)

 

      DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF APRIL 2023  

 

Dr. S.N. Mothilal

Sampath Nursing Home

No.4/5, Nachiappa Street                                     M/s. Dr. B. Cheran

Kutchery Road, Mylapore                                           Counsel for

Chennai -600 004                                             Appellant / Opposite party

                                                         Vs.

 

N. Dhanasekar

S/o. Natarajan

Arumandai Madura Metupalayam                            M/s. K.Kumaran

Pudur PO, Sholavaram Via                                          Counsel for

Chennai – 600 067                                          Respondent / Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying set aside the order of the District Commission dt.28.9.2013 in CC.No.61/2005.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.       This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ opposite party as against the order dt.28.9.2013 in CC.No.61/2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South) in allowing the complaint.

 

 2.      The Respondent herein as complainant, filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the appellant/ opposite party, in performing operation on his injured right leg, by fixing plates and screws, in the year 2002. 

 

3.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite party, by filing detailed version, denying the negligence.

 

4.       But the District Commission, after analyzing the evidence, had finally passed an order by allowing the complaint in part.

 

5.       The learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the District Commission, while allowing the complaint, had directed the appellant/ opposite party to pay the amount spent on hospitalization, medicines and  consultation, as per Ex.A5 series, apart from directing to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.3000/-.  Since in the operative portion of the order, the District Commission had simply directed the opposite party to pay the amount spent on hospitalization, medicines and  consultation, as per Ex.A5 series, there is an ambiguity in fixing the quantum, thereby the award becomes unexecutable. 

 

6.       The learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party would submit that there is no negligence on their part, and the order impugned needs to be set aside.

 

7.       Having considered the submissions made, we are of the considered opinion that since there is an ambiguity as to the quantum awarded by the District Commission, the said order becomes unexecutable.  Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside, and consequently the matter is to be remanded back for fresh disposal for the limited purpose of fixing the quantum with regard to the amount spent on hospitalization, medicines and consultation fees as per Ex.A5 series, after hearing the counsels appearing for both parties.  So far as the quantum of compensation and cost awarded by the District Commission is concerned, , the same need not to be interfered with.  The appeal is allowed accordingly.

 

8.       In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission for the limited purpose of fixing the quantum with regard to the amount spent on hospitalization, medicines and consultation fees as per Ex.A5 series, after hearing the counsels appearing for bothsides.  So far as the quantum of compensation and cost awarded by the District Commission is concerned, the same need not be interfered.  The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 10.5.2023.  Time for disposal two months from the date of appearance.  No order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

    R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                 R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT