Date of Filing: 26/12/2011

        Date of Order: 16/01/2012

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  16^th DAY OF JANUARY 2012

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

C.C. NO.2360 OF 2011

Smt.Nirmala Kumari R,

Aged About 43 years,

W/o. Rajanna A.V.,

No.5123, Srinivasa Nilaya,

Vijayanagar, Nelamangala,

Bangalore-562 123.

(Rep. by G-Droit, Advocate)                                                                  ….  Complainant.

V/s

(1) Shree Maruthi Hospital,

Multi Specialty Hospital & clinical Laboratory

No.67, Link Road, Sheshadripuram,

Bangalore-560 020.

(2) Dr. Vishnu Hayagriv,

Shree Maruthi Hospital,

Multi Specialty Hospital & Clinical Laboratory,

No.67, Link Road, Sheshadripuram,

Bangalore-560 020.

(3) Dr. R.Janardhana,

“Sri Rangabharana”, No.2933/E,

East of Chord Road, Vijayanagar 2^nd Stage,

Bangalore-560 040.

(4) Dr.Sundari,

Shree Maruthi Hospital,

Multi Specialty Hospital & clinical Laboratory,

No.67, Link Road, Sheshadripuram,

Bangalore-560 020.                                                           …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRARAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The complainant has made this complaint seeking refund of Rs.55,976/- spent towards medical expenses and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation making certain allegations.  The case was posted to hearing regarding admission on 02.01.2012, 06.01.2012, 09.01.2012 and to today 16.01.2012.  On all these days neither the complainant nor his counsel were present though the case was adjourned even on payment.  Hence perused the records.

2.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is prima facie to proceed against the opposite parties?

2. What Order?

3.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) :     In the Negative

Point (B) :     As per the final Order

                   for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

4.       In this case the 1^st opposite party is a hospital.  Who is representing the 1^st opposite party is not stated at all.  The hospital, whether it is a private limited company, public limited company, proprietory concern, partnership firm is not at all stated.  Any institution has to be represented either by the Manager or an authorized officer or managing director or company secretary, etc.,.  But nothing has been stated.  Hence it is impossible to proceed against the 1^st opposite party.

5.       Further how the action of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 are negligent is not at all stated.  No expert opinion has been obtained much less any opinion of any other Doctor has been obtained to show that the action or the treatment given by opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 are negligent.  Merely the complainant took treatment, subsequently elsewhere at St. John’s Medical College Hospital, it does not mean that the treatment given by the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 is negligent.  Even the St’ John’s Medical College Hospital records does not show that the treatment given by opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 is negligent.  Hence under these circumstances, we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.       The complaint is Dismissed.  No order as to costs.

2.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

3.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 16^th Day of January 2012)

MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT