STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/14/402 null DR. JOLLY GEORGE PRESENT ADDRESS - HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL, MUTHALAKODAM P.O, THODUPUZHA , IDUKKINCDRC,KERALA.

THE ADMINISTRATOR PRESENT ADDRESS - HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL,MUTHALAKODAM P.O, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKINCDRC,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus FRANCIS P.U PRESENT ADDRESS - PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, POONJAR, ADIVARAM, NCDRC,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: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.402/2014 & APPEAL No.426/2014 COMMON JUDGEMENT DATED: 23.01.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.256/2012 of the CDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER A 402/2014 APPELLANTS:

1. Dr. Jolly George, Holy Family Hospital, Muthalakodam P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki

2. The Administrator, Holy Family Hospital, Muthalakodam P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki (by Adv. M.C. Suresh)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Francis P.U., S/o Ulahannan, Puthenpurackal House, Poonjar Adivaram,

Kottayam

(by Advs. C.S. Rajmohan & Shiji Joseph)

A 426/2014

APPELLANT:

Francis P.U., S/o Ulahannan, Puthenpurackal House, Poonjar Adivaram, Kottayam (by Advs. C.S. Rajmohan & Shiji Joseph)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. The Administrator, Holy Family Hospital, Muthalakodam P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685 606

2. Dr. Jolly George, Holy Family Hospital, Muthalakodam P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki - 685 606 (by Adv. M.C. Suresh) Common Judgement

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Both these appeals arose from the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (the District Commission for short) in C.C.No.256/2012.

2. On 29.04.2014 the complaint was allowed by the District Commission and directed the opposite parties to pay the complainant compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) with a default clause to pay interest @12% per annum in the event of non-

compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

3. Parties will be referred as complainant and the opposite parties in accordance with the status before the District Commission.

4. The opposite parties had challenged the order of the District Commission through Appeal No.402/2014. The complainant had filed Appeal No.426/2014 by challenging the adequacy of the compensation ordered.

5. Both the appeals are disposed of vide this common judgement as the same arose from the same order.

6. The complainant had approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The administrator and the doctor attached to the Holy Family Hospital are the opposite parties. The case as set out in the complaint is that on nd

02.11.2011 the complainant had consulted with the 2 opposite party for the treatment in connection with the pain on the neck. The 2 opposite party admitted the complainant in the hospital from where MRI scan was done. Emergency surgery was done by the 2 opposite party and the complainant was discharged on 12.11.2011 with medical advice to take medicines for five days. He was also advised to visit the hospital after three days for review. Since the complainant was unable to travel, his father-in-law was sent to the hospital on 17.11.2011 and 21.11.2011 and availed medical advice from the 2 opposite party. 7. On 29.11.2011 the complainant could notice a bulging on the operation site and puss was oozing out through the bulged area. On the next day, the complainant had nd nd contacted the 2 opposite party. The 2 opposite party had collected the pus for lab test and after dressing the wound, directed the complainant to visit the hospital for review after five days. But on account of the severe pain, numbness of the limbs and uneasiness, the nd complainant had gone to the hospital on 03.12.2