Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/262/2019

Premier Health Center and Clinical Lab, Rep by its Center Manager, No.12/8, welcome Colony, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar, West Extension, Chennai 600 101. - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.Swaminathan, F/o.Miss.S.M.Akshaya,No.1/2, Gandhi Street, Durai Devan Apartments S2, 2nd floor, Mog - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.B.Mohan

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                    BEFORE :        Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                    PRESIDENT

                                  Thiru R   VENKATESAPERUMAL             MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.262/2019

(Against order in CC.NO.1/2018 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North)

 

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

Premier Heath Center & Clinical Lab

Rep. by its Center Manager

No.12/8, Welcome Colony,

Thirumangalam                                                     M/s. B. Mohan

Anna Nagar West Extension                                      Counsel for

Chennai – 600 101                                         Appellant / Opposite party

 

 

                                                         Vs.

N. Swaminathan

F/o. Miss S.M.Akshaya

No.1/2, Gandhi Street, Durai Devan Apartments S2       M/s. A.Suresh

2^nd Floor, Mogappair East                                             Counsel for

Chennai – 600 037                                          Respondent/ Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.9.5.2018 in CC. No.1/2018.

 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for both parties, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.      The opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

 

2.       The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the     complainant’s daughter suddenly fell ill and hence she consulted the doctor, who advised her to take complete blood test, including hemoglobin level.  The complainant’s daughter had taken blood test with the opposite party clinic, on 23.3.2017 by paying Rs.840/-.  On 24.3.2017,  report was given by showing the hemoglobin level as 6.5gms/dl. The doctor was shocked to see the hemoglobin value @ 6.9 gms/dl., and advised the complainant to check with the lab/ opposite party.  The complainant when contacted the opposite party, they had made an alteration in the report as 11.5 gms/dl. in order to escape from the liability.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for compensation and cost.

 

3.       The   Appellant/ opposite party, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and had directed the  Appellant/ opposite party  to  refund Rs.840/-  alongwith   compensation of Rs.50000/-and cost of Rs.5000/-. 

 

4.       The learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party had submitted      that there is no deficiency in service on their part.  Since the opposite party had not received the notice, they could not appear before the District Commission. The non-appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton.  If an opportunity is provided, the opposite party have a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit. 

 

5.       We have heard the learned counsel appearing on eitherside.

 

6.       Having considered the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that deciding the matter after considering the defence of the otherside would always be justifiable.  Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that a chance may be given to the appellant/ opposite party to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by way of order dt.17.10.2022 we have directed the appellant/ opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the Respondent, on or before 27.10.2022, which was complied with.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North)  in C.C.No.1/2018 dt.9.5.2018, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Chennai (North), for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Chennai (North) on 28.11.2022, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellant/opposite party shall file not only the vakalat, but also the written version, proof affidavit, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, as expeditiously as possible, according to law on merit.  

The amount deposited, by the appellant, shall abide the order of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                             R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT