Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/12/155

Harikumar S - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Lab Man Diagnostic Centre - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

   SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN           : PRESIDENT

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR          : MEMBER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                         : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.155/12 (Filed on : 11.05.2012)

ORDER DATED : 30.05.2022

COMPLAINANT

Harikumar.S

Kailas Villa, K.R.R.A-63 ( C )

Keshava Dev Road, TC 19/1726 (3),

Mudavanmughal, Poojappura.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 002

 

(Thirumala.K.Bijukumar)

VS

 

OPPOSITE PARTY

 

The proprietor,

Labman diagnostic Center,

Near Kottakkal Arya Vaidyasala,

Opp.Aiswarya margin Fee Bazaar,

Poojappura Junction, Poojappura.P.O

Thiruvannathapuram

 

(Adv.G.Mahesh kumar)

ORDER

 

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.       This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the allegations raised by the complainant. The complainant filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P6 series were marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.P1 is the copy of blood report dated 06.12.2011 given by opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of the reference letter given by Dr.P.M.C.Nair dated 06.12.2011. Ext.P3 is the copy of lab report dated 06.12.2011 of KIMS Hospital. Ext.P4 is the copy of discharge summary dated 08.12.2011 of KIMS Hospital. Ext.P5 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 13.02.2012. Ext.P6 is the copy of Advocate notice to the complainant dtd 13.02.2012. Since 09.04.2015 the case was posted for cross examination of the complainant and as the opposite party not turned up for cross examination, the evidence was closed and subsequently the opposite party filed reopen petition and the same was allowed. As the complainant not turned up for cross examination the evidence of the complainant was closed. Subsequently the complainant filed application to reopen the case and the same was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.500/- to the opposite party. As the complainant not paid cost, the evidence of the complainant was again closed by this Commission. Subsequent to that the complainant was continuously absent and on 17.05.2022, the counsel appearing for the complainant reported no instructions. Hence we find that the complainant is not interested to further proceed with this complaint.

     In the result, complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

      A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

        Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 30^th day of May 2022.

 

                                                                                              Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

 

                                                                                          Sd/-

                          VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

be/