The complaint was barred by limitation and the appellant did not exhibit negligence in the service provided.

1. This Order shall decide both the first appeals arising from the impugned Judgment / Order dated 3.2.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Dispute No. 2/2006, wherein the State Commission allowed the complaint and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.12,00,000 & Rs.2,00,000 towards costs.

2. For the convenience, the parties are being referred to as in the Complaint before the State Commission

3. Brief relevant facts of the case are that the Complainant Mrs. G. Mangayarkarasi (for short, 'the patient'), an auto rickshaw driver was suffering from thyroid problem. She consulted Dr. Mohan Kumar (OP - 2) in his private clinic. He was working in Govt. General Hospital, Puducherry (OP - 5). On 4.3.2003, he performed thyroid surgery and discharged her on 10.3.2003. It was alleged that the Complainant suffered pain in throat and vocal cord, unable to speak properly for which the OP - 2 advised to wait for some weeks to heal the surgical wound to recover her voice. She took follow - up treatment in the OPD of OP - 5 - Hospital and also at private clinic of OP - 2. During the treatment period, the patient conceived and delivered a male baby at Govt. Maternity Hospital, Puducherry.

4. As there was no improvement even after one year, on 16.8.2004, the Complainant approached JIPMER Hospital and came to know that she was operated for 'Subtotal Thyroidectomy'. It was alleged that during surgery, some nerves got damaged permanently and, therefore, for her breathing difficulties, she underwent 'Tracheotomy' on 27.8.2004. The Jackson metal tracheotomy tube of size 32 was inserted and she has to live with it throughout her life, which requires regular cleaning and change of tubes to avoid infection. Even after surgery at JIPMER Hospital, her condition did not improve. She consulted few doctors in Puducherry. Since she continued to have pain, she approached Apollo Hospital, Chennai and on 24.6.2005, underwent fibre - optic laryngoscopy, which confirmed bilateral abductor palsy of vocal cords. Since her TSH was high and she was advised not to go for further surge y. Being aggrieved by the faulty and negligent surgery, she filed a complaint before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.37,00,000

5. The OP - 2 filed written version and raised objection that the complaint is barred by limitation as it was filed after three years from the cause of action, i.e. surgery. Moreover, the treatment given by OP No. 2 is free of charge in the Govt. Hospital, Puducherry. Therefore, the Complainant is not a Consumer.

6. He submitted that the thyroid surgery was uneventful and after removal of the stitches at the time of discharge, her speech was normal. She did not complain about any pain post - operatively. The biopsy was reported as Hashimoto Thyroiditis, an auto immune disorder. The patient visited OP - 2 only on two occasions in his clinic. He prescribed medicines for respiratory infection and general health.

7. The written version filed by the OP - 5 was adopted by OPs - 1, 3 and 4, as they were Govt. Authorities as a proforma parties. It was submitted that an enquiry was conducted by Dr. K. Nandakumar, explained the treatment given by OP - 2 and advised to undergo further treatment, but, the complainant never came forward. The allegations are baseless and vexatious. The Govt. Hospital, Puducherry is well equipped with modern machineries and new technologies. Therefore, there was no medical negligence on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8. The State Commission while deciding the complaint framed