STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/32/RA/26/2025 IN 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. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 18/08/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVIEW APPLICATION No.26/2025 in APPEAL No.160/2014 ORDER DATED : 18.08.2025 PRESENT:

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

Advocate Jwala K.P. appointed as Amicus Curiae on 18.06.2025 for the resepondent Latha W/o Changarathparambilo Jayaprakash, Kilimamgalam, Thalappilly Taluk Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

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

2. Dr. Kunjoojamma Kuriakose, Kozhikode – 673 005 M/s Divine Medical Centre Ltd., P.O. Wadakkanchery, Ottupura, Thrissur (by Adv. M.C. Suresh)

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an application filed by Advocate Jwala K.P., the amicus curiae appointed by this Commission for arguing the case for the respondent.

2. The petitioner was appointed as the amicus curiae for and on behalf of the respondent/complainant to argue the case as per order dated 18.06.2025. But there was an omission on the part of this Commission in not recording the appointment of the amicus curiae and the argument advanced by her.

3. Heard. Perused the records.

4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner herein was appointed as the amicus curiae to argue the case as per the proceedings dated 18.06.2025. The amicus curiae was also heard for and on behalf of the respondent. But there was an omission on the part of this Commission in not referring the appointment of the petitioner as the amicus curiae. It is an error apparent on the face of the record which has to be corrected by resorting to Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act.

5. Paragraph 10 of the judgment is also ordered to be corrected as follows:

“The counsel for the respondent remained absent when the matter came up for hearing. So Advocate Jwala K.P. was appointed as the amicus curiae by this Commission for arguing the case for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned amicus curiae”.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The office is directed to effect necessary corrections in the judgment and call for the copies, if any, issued and effect corrections in the copies also.

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

SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR PRESIDENT ..................

SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D JUDICIAL MEMBER ..................J SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER