KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 34/2022

ORDER DATED: 06.06.2022

(Against the Order in I.A. 112/2021 in C.C. 27/2018 of CDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN    : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Vinod K. Mathew, Kanjikkal House, Karikulam P.O., Ranni, Chethomkara, Pathanamthitta.

                   (By Adv. M.S. Sankarankutty)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Thiruvalla Medical Mission Hospital represented by Dr. Samson K. Sam, Medical Superintendent, P.O. Box No. 74, Thiruvalla-689 101.

2. Dr. K.T. Sebastian, Surgeon, Thiruvalla Medical Mission Hospital, P.O. Box No. 74, Thiruvalla-689 101.

3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., represented by the Branch Manager, Chengannur Branch, Poovathoor Building, M.C. Road, Chengannur-689 121.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

The complainant in C.C. No. 27/2018 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (District Commission for short) is in revision.  He is aggrieved by the order in I.A. 112/2021 dated 02.03.2022.  The Interlocutory Application was filed by the revision petitioner for the purpose of impleading one Dr. Murali as an additional opposite party in the complaint.  According to the revision petitioner, he had approached opposite parties 1 & 2 in the complaint since he had been suffering from stomach pain.  On the advice of the 2^nd opposite party in the complaint, he had undergone a surgery.  But, later on, there developed an infection and other complications because of alleged professional negligence on the part of the opposite parties in the complaint.  He was thereafter treated by Dr. Murali, the additional opposite party sought to be impleaded and it is stated that he was saved only because of the treatment of the said person.  During trial, summons had been issued to Dr. Murali from the District Commission.  Though he had received the summons, he had not appeared or tendered evidence in the complaint.  It was in the said circumstances that, a petition to implead the said person as an additional opposite party was filed.  The said petition has been dismissed by the District Commission.

2.  According to the counsel for the revision petitioner, the District Commission erred in dismissing the impleading petition.  It is contended that, Dr. Murali though not a necessary party, is a proper party who ought to have been brought on the party array of the complaint, as sought for.  Unless he is made a party to the proceedings, the revision petitioner would not be able to let in evidence regarding the nature of the complications that had been caused to him due to the negligence of the other opposite parties.  The counsel also places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court reported in 2014(3) KHC 549 in support of his contention that, apart from necessary parties, a proper party may also be impleaded in any proceedings. 

3.  We have heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and considered the contentions advanced before us, anxiously.  It is not in dispute that Dr. Murali had not been made a party to the complaint, by the revision petitioner when he filed the complaint.   He is a person against whom the revision petitioner has no complaint.  Nor does the revision petitioner seek any relief against the said person.  He was the person who had treated the revision petitioner and nursed him back to health.  He was the person whom the complainant had stated as his witness, in support of the case put forward in the complaint.  Accordingly summons had been issued to the said person, requiring him to attend the District Commission and to give evidence in the case.  However, he had not responded.  It was in such circumstances that the petitioner has sought to implead him as an additional opposite party to the complaint.  He was not a part of the transaction that the complainant had with the other opposite parties in the complaint.  It is against the deficiency in service of the other opposite parties that the complainant has sought redressal from the District Commission.  The person sought to be impleaded is the person who has rescued the revision petitioner from the situation in which he was placed, consequent to the alleged defective treatment of the other opposite parties.  The above being the factual scenario, the decision on which reliance has been placed by the counsel, has no application here.  The District Commission was right in dismissing the petition.  If the revision petitioner wants to have the evidence of Dr. Murali recorded, he can either file a fresh application for the issue of summons to him or seek appropriate orders for having his evidence recorded by issuing a commission.  He can also seek answers to interrogatories that he may request the District Commission to issue. 

For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to admit this revision.  The same is accordingly dismissed. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                            T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                   RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                                                             BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                                                            K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN  : MEMBER

jb