Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/161/2024

DR. KAVITHA SENTHIL, REGN NO. 59827, GYNECOLOGIST - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAYAKUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

M/S R.B. LAW ASSOCIATES REPRESENTED BY V.R. ANNA GANDHI, B.E. ASHWIN BALA SOMESHWERAR

27 Sep 2024

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :        Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH              PRESIDENT

                       

F.A.NO.161/2024

(Against order in CC.NO.238/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Ariyalur)

 

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

 

1.       Dr. Kavitha Senthil, Gynecologist

          Director, GVN Hospital (P) Ltd.,

          GVN Riverside Hospital

          Thimmarayasamuthiram, T.V.Koil

          Tiruchirapalli- 620 005

 

2.       Dr. V J Senthil

          Managing Director

          GVN Hospital (P) Ltd.,

          GVN Riverside Hospital

          Thimmarayasamuthiram, T.V.Koil

          Tiruchirapalli- 620 005

 

3.       Dr. M. Shakthiyathev,  CEO

          GVN Hospital (P) Ltd.,

          GVN Riverside Hospital                             M/s. R.B.Law Associates

          Thimmarayasamuthiram, T.V.Koil                        Counsel for

          Tiruchirapalli- 620 005                          Appellants /Opposite parties

 

                                                         Vs.

Vijayakumar

S/o. Rajalingam

1/128, South Street                                               M/s. P. Saravanan

Ilangaicheri Village & Post                                            Counsel for

Ariyalur District – 621 714                                  Respondent/ Complainant                    

 

        The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission has allowed the complaint in part. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.4.5.2023 in CC.No.238/2022.

 

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

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.     The opposite parties before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

 

2.        The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant and his wife approached the opposite parties for the fertility treatment.  The opposite parties have suggested for IVF treatment for her to get conceived.  For the said treatment, the opposite parties have performed an operation to the complainant’s wife Mrs.Kavitha for taking ovum from her uterus for performing IVF method of pregnancy.  But immediately after the said operation, she had suffered from heavy bleeding per vagina.  Since they have not given a timely treatment for her, it had caused kidney, liver and lung failure to her, ultimately resulted in death.  All these complications have occurred which had resulted in death of his wife, was only due to the incorrect surgery done by the opposite parties.  Therefore, alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to reimburse the medical expenses @ Rs.7,00,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.40 lakhs.

 

3.       The Appellants/ 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties, though appeared through counsel before the District Commission, failed to file their written version in time.     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 parties and had directed the opposite parties to pay the hospital expenses @ Rs.4,97,897/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization, and to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.10000/-. Aggrieved over the order impugned, the opposite parties have filed the present appeal, praying to set aside the order passed, and remand back the matter for fresh disposal.

 

4.       The learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties had submitted before this commission that the appellants/ opposite parties had given prescribed treatment to alleviate the deteriorating health condition of the complainant’s wife.  The treatments were given by competent and experienced medical professionals who are experts in their fields.  The complainant had not made out a case of negligence against the opposite parties.  There is no deficiency in service on their part.  The non-appearance, and non-filing of version before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton. The District Commission failed to note that the appellants/ opposite parties have preferred a Revision Petition before this commission, for setting aside the exparte order.  The order impugned was passed while the Revision Petition was pending before this commission.   If an opportunity is provided, the opposite parties will have a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus, prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit. 

 

5.       The Respondent/ complainant has appeared through counsel before this commission, and put forth their submission in consonance with the order of the District Commission.  I have heard the learned counsel appearing for bothsides, and perused the material documents submitted before me for consideration.

 

6.       Having considered the submissions, I am of the opinion that since the subject matter involves the allegation of medical negligence against the opposite parties, I feel that it would be justifiable to decide the matter after considering the submissions of opposite parties, accordingly I am inclined to give a chance to the appellants/ opposite parties to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering fact that the opposite parties have showed their lethargic attitude in not appearing before the District Commission, by way of order dt.10.9.2024, for allowing the appeal, this commission has directed the appellants/ opposite parties to deposit a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the Legal aid account of the State Commission, on or before 26.9.2024, 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, Ariyalur in C.C.No.238/2022 dt.4.5.2023, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Ariyalur, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Ariyalur on 25.10.2024, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellants/ 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties shall file not only their vakalat, but also their written version and proof affidavit, and the documents if any.    The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months, according to law on merit.  

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

 

 

 

                                                                     R. SUBBIAH

                                                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 

INDEX : YES / NO

Rsh/dRSJ/ ORDERS