IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER C.C.No.15/2012 (C.O.P.No.40/2007 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai)

WEDNESDAY, THE 26^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022.

Date of complaint filed : 13.11.2006 Date of order pronounced : 26.10.2022

1. S.Arunachalam, Retired Assistant Head Master, S/o A.Subbaiah Thevar, Jamin Singampatti, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 1st Complainant

2. Dr.Vel Manickavalli, W/o Vijaya Sankara Pandian, No.13-H, 3rd Street, Briant Nagar, Thoothukudi. 2nd Complainant -Vs-

1. Dr.H.Sivarama Krishnan, Sri Sudharsan Hospitals, No.4 Salai Street, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli-3. 1st Opposite Party

2. S.Harishankar, Sri Sudharsan Hospitals, No.4 Salai Street, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli-3. 2nd Opposite Party

3. Sri Sudharsan Hospitals Represented by its Chief Medical Officer, No.4 Salai Street, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli -3. 3rd Opposite Party Counsel for the Complainants : Mr.Palanivelayutham, Advocate.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties-1 & 3 : Mr.B.Cheran, Advocate.

Counsel for the Opposite Party-2 : Dismissed as Abates.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 26.07.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,09,825/- as compensation for the loss of life, mental agony, sufferings and cost of medicines and also cost of the proceedings.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows:

The first complainant is the Retired Assistant Head-Master and the second complainant is the daughter of the first complainant. On 01.09.2005 the wife of the first complainant was admitted at the third opposite party hospital due some ailments. The third opposite party hospital is fully owned by the first and second opposite parties and the same is being run by them.

The wife of the first complainant had been as in-patient in the third opposite party hospital till 06.09.2005. The nature of treatments were not known to them. All of a sudden, on 06.09.2005 at about 5 o’clock, the opposite parties informed the complainants that the patient died. They had also not chosen to inform the cause of death to the complainants. They also failed to furnish the Case Sheet of the deceased with particulars of clinical investigation and subsequent diagnosis and the nature of treatment with medicines having been administered to the deceased during her stay at the hospital. Though the same were pleaded to be furnished to them, the opposite parties did not adhere and handed over the body of the deceased after receiving the entire charges including professional charges. The complainants got strong suspicious on the conduct of the opposite parties in treating the patient, they requested by means of communication, dated 12.12.2005 to the opposite parties for furnishing the treatment particulars at an early date. As the complainant got no reply from them, a telegram was opted to be sent to the first opposite party on 24.01.2006 for fulfilling his demand of furnishing the Case Sheet of the deceased. Finally, the opposite parties sent a reply, dated 01.02.2006 not contain the nature of treatment which was administered to the patient during at her stay at the hospital. The opposite parties are expected to furnish the details of treatment having been given to the deceased. After the receipt of the same, the complainant sent a detailed rejoinder contraverting the allegations and averments leveled against them by the opposite parties in their alleged reply. The opposite parties had taken a categorical stand that they would not disclose the treatment to anybody else except to Court. A small scrap of paper which is claimed to be the S