STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/14/160 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, DIVINE MEDICAL CENTRE LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - WADAKKANCHERRY, ,KERALA.

DR. KUNJOONJAMMA KURIAKOSE PRESENT ADDRESS - DIVINE MEDICAL CENTRE LTD, WADAKKANCHERRY,OTTUPURA ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus LATHA PRESENT ADDRESS - CHANGARATHPARAMBIL, KILLIMANGALAM P.O, OTTUPURA ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 08/07/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.160/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 08.07.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.1096/2006 on the files of DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1. M/s Divine Medical Centre Ltd., P.O. Wadakkanchery, Thrissur represented by its Managing Director

2. Dr. Kunjoojamma Kuriakose, Divine Medical Centre Ltd., P.O.

Wadakkanchery, Ottupura, Thrissur (by Adv. M.C. Suresh)

Vs RESPONDENT:

Latha, W/o Changarathparambilo, Jayaprakash, Killimamgalam, Thalappilly Taluk, Pin – 680 591

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D : JUDICIAL MEMBER The opposite parties in C.C.No.1096/2006 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur (the District Commission for short) are the appellants.

2. The complaint was filed before the District Commission alleging deficiency in st service in respect of the treatment given to the complainant. The 1 opposite party is one nd st Divine Medical Centre and the 2 opposite party is the Gynaecologist attached to the 1 opposite party.

3. The averments contained in the complaint in brief are as follows:

st On 18.08.2006 the complainant was admitted in the 1 opposite party hospital for nd delivery. On 19.08.2006 the delivery was conducted by way of C section by the 2 opposite party. After the delivery, urine leakage occurred and the complainant could not control the tendency to pass urine. The matter was intimated to the 2 opposite party who advised the complainant that it will be cured. Even after the discharge, this complication continued and later, the complainant was admitted in another hospital at Thrissur and she was informed that the 2 opposite party had conducted the surgery in a negligent manner and on account of that the urinary bladder of the complainant got injured which was also sutured in a negligent manner. A lawyer notice was issued to the opposite parties to which a reply was also sent.

The complainant would allege medical negligence. Hence the complaint.

st

4. A written version was filed by the 1 opposite party by raising the following allegations:

The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer under the st provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. However, the 1 opposite party admits that the st complainant had availed treatment from the hospital in connection with the delivery. The 1 opposite party had provided adequate hospital facilities, qualified and competent doctors and nursing staff and well equipped operation theatre. There is no negligence or deficiency in st nd service on the part of the 1 opposite party. In case if there is any negligence, the 2 opposite party is liable to pay compensation. No vicarious liability could be fastened against st nd the 1 opposite party on the reason that the 2 opposite party had acted independently and taken decision in respect of treatment of the patient. Therefore, no liability could be fastened st on the 1 opposite party.

nd

5. The 2 opposite party had filed a version contending that the complaint is not nd maintainable either in law or on facts. The 2 opposite party would admit that the complainant got treated from the hospital. The complainant had consulted with the 2 opposite party on 18.06.2006 at 10p.m. with complaints of amenerrhoea of nine months duration and leaking per-vaginum. Her previous pregnancy was also