STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVISION PETITION NO. SC/32/RP/26/2020 DR.RAMA RAO PRESENT ADDRESS - GENERAL SURGEON,BHARATH HOSPITAL,AZAD LANE,KOTTAYAM ,KERALA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus MATHEW MANI PRESENT ADDRESS - ENCHKKATTU HOUSE,AMAYANNOOR(PO),KOTTAYAM-686519 ,KERALA.

BHARATH HOSPITAL PRESENT ADDRESS - AZAD LANE,KOTTAYAM ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE PETITIONER:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 25/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETTITION No. 26/2020 ORDER DATED: 25.06.2025 (Against the order in I.A.No.92/2019 in C.C.No.48/2014 on the files of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER REVISION PETITIONER/2nd OPPOSITE PARTY:

Dr. Rama Rao V., General Surgeon, Department of General Surgery, Bharat Hospital, Azad Lane, Kottayam now working abroad in United Kingdom residing at No.17 Coppice Wood Drive, Debyshire, United Kingdom represented by his Power of Attorney Holder, Dr. Vinod Viswanathan, S/o Dr. A.N. Viswanathan Pillai, Administrative Medical Officer, Bharat Hospital, Azad Lane, Kottayam (by Adv. Thomas P. Makil and Adv. Arun)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/1st OPPOSITE PARTY:

1. Mathew Mani, S/o Late Thomas Mathew, Enchakattu House, Amayanoor P.O., Kottayam – 686 519

2. Bharath Hospital, Azad Lane, Kottayam represented by its Administrative Medical Officer

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B.SUDHEENDRAKUMAR : PRESIDENT st The revision petitioner is the 1 opposite party in C.C.No.48/2014 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

nd

2. The 2 opposite party was set ex-parte by the District Commission as per nd order dated 05.05.2018, as the 2 opposite party did not incline to appear before the District Commission even after serving notice. It appears from the proceedings dated nd

28.04.2016 that notice was served on the 2 opposite party. Thereafter, I.A.No.92/2019 was filed seeking for setting aside ex-parte order dated 05.05.2018. The said application was dismissed by the District Commission as per order under revision.

3. Heard. Perused the records.

4. The short question to be considered is as to whether the dismissal of I.A.No.92/2019 by the District Commission was legal and correct. It is not disputed that the District Commission has no power to review the order under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is true that Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 gives power to the District Commission to review its own orders. However, there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to set aside an ex-parte order. Since no power is vested with the District Commission to set aside the ex-parte order, the District Commission was perfectly justified in dismissing I.A.No.92/2019 seeking for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 05.05.2018. Since the District Commission had no power to set aside the ex-parte order, the order passed by the District Commission dismissing I.A.No.92/2019 does not warrant interference by this Commission.

In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER SL/jb ..................

SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR PRESIDENT