Date of filing: 03.09.2018.

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH ... PRESIDENT C.C. No.179 of 2018 Orders pronounced on: 28.06.2024

1.R. Arunachalam, S/o. Late M.Rama Naicker, No.3A, Chinna Street, Zamin Royapet, Chromepet, Chennai - 600 044.

2. A.Yuvaraj, S/o. R. Arunachalam No.3A, Chinna Street, Zamin Royapet, Chromepet, Chennai – 600 044.

3. A.Thiyagarajan, S/o.R.Arunachalam, No.3A, Chinna Street, Zamin Royapet, Chrompet, Chennai-44. … Complainants Vs.

1.M/s.Gajanan Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman Dr.A.Gajanan Rao, (A.G. Hospitals), No.30, South Street, Radha Nagar, Chromepet, Chennai- 600 044.

2. Dr.Uma Devakuamr, MBBS, Reg.40263, M/s.Gajanan Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., No.30, South Street, Radha Nagar, Chromepet, Chennai – 600 044.

3.Ms.Helda, Nurse, M/s.Gajanan Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., No.30, South Street, Radha Nagar, Chromepet, Chennai – 600 044.

4.Dr.Venkatesan, MS (Ortho), Orthopedic Surgeon, M/s. Gajanan Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., No.30, South Street, Radha Nagar, Chromepet, Chennai – 600 044.

5.Ravi, A.G. Pharmacy, M/s.Gajanan Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., No.30, South Street, Radha Nagar, Chromepet, Chennai – 600 044. … Opposite Parties For Complainants : Mr.J.P.Karunakaran For Opp. Parties :Dr.B.Cheran & M. Nagarathinam M/s.V.Shankar, M/s. V.Balaji & M/s. K.Kumaran, appearing as Amicus Curiae This Complaint came to be heard for maintainability on 30.08.2023 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels for the parties as well as the amicus curiae and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. President.

–

Upon taking up this matter, a preliminary objection is raised on the side of the Opposite Parties stating that, on the same cause of action alleging medical negligence against the present OPs, the complainants herein had already filed a suit in O.S. No.166 of 2018 during April-2018 itself before the Additional District Court, Chengalpet, and the relief sought for therein is also to award compensation except for a different/bigger figure cited in the present consumer complaint; therefore, by considering the aspect that, in the event of conflicting decisions, there would arise a dilemma - as to which order would prevail for execution and further, in the event of both the forums directing the OPs to pay compensation, it would amount to double jeopardy and also trying the OPs twice for the same cause, this Commission may, in line with the practice & procedure as well as canons of legal formalism, hold the complaint as not maintainable and reject the same so that the parties can subject themselves to a full-fledged trial in the pending suit before the civil court, for a wholesome and fair decision.

2. Inasmuch any endeavor to delve into the merits of the case for its disposal would only be a futile exercise before the preliminary objection raised now could be addressed, it is unnecessary to set out the entire facts except those that are necessary for discussion.

It is the crux of the complainants’ case that Late A.Susila/wife of the 1st complainant herein was a hale and healthy individual except for the complaint of acute back pain, for which, she had visited the OPs/Hospital on 26.04.2017 and, after undergoing various diagnostic tests, at the time of her discharge on 27.04.2017, she was prescribed vitamin-D injection called Arachitol by the 4^th OP/Ortho Specialist and, after purchasing the drug from the 5th OP/Pharmacy attached to the Hospital and presuming it to be the prescribed drug by the 4th OP, the 2nd complainant had handed it over to the duty doctor/2^nd OP, who in turn had directed the Nurse/3^rd OP to administer the same to the patient and both the said OPs, without even verifying as to whether the injection was the same one as prescribed by the 4th OP, had casually administered the drug issued by the Pharmacist to the patient and thereafter, within minu