SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 35722

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DHANYA MISSION HOSPITAL – Appellant
Versus
MOLLY KURIEN – Respondent
SC/32/A/13/541



Petitioner Advocates:JULIAN XAVIER ,Respondent Advocate:

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/13/541 DHANYA MISSION HOSPITAL PRESENT ADDRESS - POTTA ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MOLLY KURIEN PRESENT ADDRESS - W/O T.A.KURIEN,THOTTYAN HOUSE,VELLACHIRA ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 18/03/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.519/2013, APPEAL No.541/2013 & APPEAL No.564/2013 COMMON JUDGEMENT DATED: 18.03.2025 (Against the order in O.P.No.830/1998 on the files of the DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER A 519/2013 APPELLANT:

Dr. Rosamma Mani, Gynaecologist, Dhanya Mission Hospital, Potta, Thrissur (by Adv. M.C. Suresh)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Molly Kurian, W/o T.A. Kurian, Thottyan House, Vellachira P.O., Chalakkudy, Thrissur (by Adv. S. Reghukumar)

2. The Administrator, Dhanya Mission Hospital, Potta, Thrissur (by Advs. Julian Xavier J. & Firoz K. Robin)

A 541/2013

APPELLANT:

The Administrator, Dhanya Mission Hospital, Potta, Thrissur (by Advs. Julian Xavier J. & Firoz K. Robin)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Molly Kurian, W/o T.A. Kurian, Thottyan House, Vellachira P.O., Chalakkudy, Thrissur (by Adv. S. Reghukumar)

2. Dr. Rosamma Mani, Gynaecologist, Dhanya Mission Hospital, Potta, Thrissur (by Adv. M.C. Suresh)

A 564/2013

APPELLANT:

Molly Kurian, W/o T.A. Kurian, Thottyan House, Vellachira P.O.,

Chalakkudy, Thrissur

(by Adv. S. Reghukumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. The Administrator, Dhanya Mission Hospital, Potta, Thrissur (by Advs. Julian Xavier J. & Firoz K. Robin)

2. Dr. Rosamma Mani, Gynaecologist, Dhanya Mission Hospital, Potta, Thrissur (by Adv. M.C. Suresh) Common Judgement SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants in appeal No. A 519/2013 and A 541/2013 are the opposite parties and the appellant in appeal No.564/2013 is the complainant in O.P.No.830/1998 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (the District Commission for short).

2. To avoid confusion parties will be referred as per their rank before the District Commission.

3. On 04.06.2013 the complaint was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as litigation costs with a default clause to pay interest @12% per annum, in the event of non-compliance of the order.

4. The opposite parties had filed the appeals challenging the order passed by the District Commission. Whereas the complainant has approached this Commission for enhancement of the compensation. Since these three appeals arose from the same order the appeals are disposed of vide this common judgement.

5. The opposite parties are the Administrator and the Gynaecologist of Dhanya Mission Hospital, Pathanapuram, Thrissur. The allegations contained in the complaint in short are as follows:

The complainant was admitted in the hospital on 28.08.1997 in connection with her second delivery. On 01.09.1997 a female child was born through cesarean operation.

nd Sterilization was also conducted by the 2 opposite party. At the time of discharge, the complainant was suffering from severe abdominal pain and difficulties at the operation site.

When she disclosed nd these facts to the 2 opposite party, the doctor told her that it was natural to have such pain and difficulties in cases of cesarean and sterilization for a short duration. Though pain killers and medicines were also given to the complainant, pain and ailments did not subside.

nd nd Subsequently, fever occurred and she had approached the 2 opposite party. But the 2 opposite party did not consider the complaints seriously. She had advised the complainant to take bed rest.

nd

6. As the ailment did not subside, on 04.10.1997 she had visited the 2 opposite nd

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top