Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/70/2022

The managing director - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.Ranganathan - Opp.Party(s)

S.Manuraj

06 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :       Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH                              PRESIDENT

Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                               MEMBER

 

COMMON ORDER IN

R.P.NO.70/2022 & RP.NO.77/2022

 

(Against MA.No.85/2022 AND MA.NO.27/2022 in CC.NO.1/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Krishnagiri)

 

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

                            

1.       The Managing Director

          Miot Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,

          No.4/112, Mount Poonamalli Road

          Manapakkam, Chennai 600 089

 

2.       Dr. Prithivi Mohandoss

          Hip Replacement Surgeon

          Miot Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,                                             M/s. S. Manuraj

          No.4/112, Mount Poonamalli Road                              Counsel for

          Manapakkam, Chennai – 600 089                  Petitioners / Opposite parties

 

                  Vs.

 

V. Ranganathan                                                       M/s.Feroze Bathru Khadiri &

S/o. Venkatachalam                                              A.Sayeedain Mohamed Arif Hayath

No.1/171, Karupanayakanpatti Village                                    Counsel for

Maniathahalli Post, Dharmapuri District                         Respondent/ Complainant

 

          These Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners/Opposite parties praying to set aside the order dt.10.10.2022 made in MA.No.85/2022 in CC.No.1/2022 and the order dt.13.6.2022 made in MA.No.27/2022 in CC.No.1/2022 before the District Commission, Krishnagiri.

 

           Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for petitioner and the Respondent appeared in person, this commission made the following order in the open court.

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH,   PRESIDENT    (Open Court)

  

1.       The Opposite parties in CC.No.1/2022 on the file of the District Commission, Krishnagiri are the Revision Petitioners in RP.No.70/2022 and RP.No.77/2022.

2.       The RP.No.70/2022 has been filed as against the order dt.10.10.2022 made in MA.No.85/2022 in CC.No.1/2022, permitting the Respondent/ complainant herein to examine Dr.M.Rajkumar of Ganga Hospital to prove the case of the complainant.

 

3.       The RP.No.77/2022 has been filed as against the order dt.13.6.2022 made in  MA.No.27/2022 in CC.No.1/2022 to receive the additional document in support of the complainant.

 

4.          At the time of enquiry, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/ complainant would submit that petition in MA.No.85/2022 had been allowed by the District Commission in permitting the complainant to cross examine Dr.M.Rajkumar of Ganga Hospital.  But the said doctor had refused to come and give evidence. Therefore, nothing survives in the order passed by the District Commission in MA.No.85/2022.  Hence the Revision Petition in RP.No.70/2022 deserves to be closed.

 

5.       As far as RP.No.77/2022 which was filed against the order in MA.No.27/2022 in CC.No.1/2022 is concerned, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners/ opposite parties would contend that the documents sought to be marked by way of filing this petition is not relevant to the case of the complainant.  Moreover, Dr.M.Rajkumar of Ganga Hospital, called for the purpose of cross examination, based on the documents sought to be marked,  had not consented to depose.  Therefore, marking of those documents will not serve any purpose.

6.       At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Respondent/ complainant submitted that the documents sought to be filed are all pertaining to Ganga Hospital, where the complainant had taken treatment subsequently, and the entries made therein would prove the negligence on the part of the MIOT Hospital.

          The learned counsel for the Respondent / complainant also had further submitted that the documents sought to be marked is not for the purpose of cross examination, and he intends to send those documents, for obtaining expert opinion to the Medical Board, constituted by the GH or the District Hospital.   The learned counsel also made an endorsement to this effect. 

 

7.       Therefore, in view of the submission and the endorsement made by the counsel for the Respondent, the order in MA.No.27/2022 in CC.No.1/2022 is hereby set aside and the Revision Petitions are hereby disposed of with a liberty to the Respondent/ Complainant for filing a fresh petition before the District Commission praying for forwarding the documents of Ganga Hospital for obtaining the Expert Opinion.

 

8.       Both the Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

 

 

            R VENKATESAPERUMAL                             R. SUBBIAH

                          MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

INDEX : YES / NO