IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI Present Date of appeal filed: 28.01.2016 THIRU. S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER F.A.No.24/2016 TUESDAY, THE 03^rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2023.

S.Chandra @ Chandrika, W/o P.Balasubramani, T.Sellandipalayam, Thoranakkalpatti Village, Karur Taluk. Appellant/Complainant -Vs-

Dr.P.Sivamani, M.B.B.S.,M.D., Priyanka Nursing Home, No.39, North Pradhakshinam Road, Near St.Therasa Higher Secondary School, Karur – 639 001. Respondent/Opposite Party Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : M/s I.Joshua, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent/Opposite Party : AAV Associates.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of C.M.P.No.02/2014 in Unnumbered C.C./2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur, dated 10.12.2015 the complainant preferred this appeal. This appeal coming before me for final hearing on 27.09.2023 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. The Facts:

The complainant one Chandra @ Chandrika preferred a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence against the opposite party/doctor. It is her contention in the affidavit that she was treated by the opposite party and committed medical negligence on 01.03.2011. The above complaint has to be filed within two years i.e., on or before 01.03.2013. But the complainant taking further treatment at G.Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, she was bedridden and unable to move anywhere. Hence there was a delay in filing the complaint. Hence she prayed to condone the delay of 301 days.

2. On the other hand the opposite party in their counter stated that the above application is not maintainable and each days delay was not explained properly. The complainant was not taking any continuous treatment and the allegations that she was bedridden all along is also not true. Hence, te prayed to dismiss the petition.

3. The District Commission received Exhibits-P1 to P6 and Ex.R1 series, finally, dismissed the petition.

4. Aggrieved with the above order, this appeal has been preferred by the complainant on the following:

Grounds: That, the District Commission failed to note that she was as an in-

patient as well as out-patient taking treatment till 13.09.2013. The District Commission without applying its mind merely relying H.M.O.P.194/2013 which was conducted between 01.03.2011 till 13.09.2013 and parties presence were not necessary for those proceedings. Hence dismissal order is liable to be set aside.

5. In this case, on 27.09.2023 there is no representation for the appellant and opposite party alone present and argued.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the appeal is to be allowed?

7. Discussion on the Point: It is the case of the complainant that she suffered by the medical negligence committed by the opposite party and she also took further treatment at G.Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital and she was continuously took treatment and unable to file her complaint in time. On the other hand the opposite party pleaded that she was not in continuous treatment and she was not bedridden. 8. However the opposite party by relying upon the discharge summary issued by the G.Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital contended in their affidavit that the complainant was discharged from the hospital on 15.03.2011 itself and she was asked to come for review on 23.03.2011 and the petitioner failed to produce any documents except Ex.P1 and P2 dated 08.06.2013 and 13.09.2013. And both documents are only laboratory reports. She did not prove that the petitioner was all along bedridden or all along taking treatment. Even the other prescription are related only to the period on 04.05.2013, 09.07.2013, 10.09.2013, 12.11.2013 and they are all did not prove any continuous treatment from 2011 to 2014.

9. Moreover the complainant meanwhile filed a divorce petition before Karur, Subordinate Judge Court and the proceedings were marked as Ex.R1 series. The pet