STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/15/839 null dr gnanadas PRESENT ADDRESS - NEURO SURGEON MOULANA HOSPITAL P B NO 31 OOTTY ROAD PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM 679322 ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus dasan PRESENT ADDRESS - VAKEKALAM HOUSE CHERPULASSERY P O PALAKKAD 679503 ,KERALA.

THE PROPRIETOR MOULANA HOSPITAL PRESENT ADDRESS - PB NO 31 OOTTY ROAD PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM 679322 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 839/2015 JUDGEMENT DATED : 18.03.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.226/2012 on the file of DCDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

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

1.

Dr. Gnanadas, Neuro Surgeon, Moulana Hospital, P.B. No.31, Ootty Road, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram – 679 322

2.

The Proprietor, Moulana Hospital, P.B. No.31, Ootty Road, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram – 679 322 (by Adv. M.C. Suresh)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Dasan, S/o Govindan Nair, Vakekalam House, Cherpulassery P.O., Palakkad

– 679 503

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C.No.226/2012 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant approached one Dr.

Deepak with complaints of headache, vomiting and difficulty in walking. Dr. Deepak advised to take a CT scan of the brain. Accordingly, CT scan was taken. The CT scan impression was that the left cerebellum having features suggestive of pilocytic astrocytoma, obstructive hydrocephalous (Space Occupying Leison). Immediately, the nd complainant approached the 2 opposite party for treatment on 26.10.2011. The nd complainant underwent a surgery on 27.10.2011. The 2 opposite party stated that the growth was completely removed. The complainant was discharged on 06.11.2011.

3. The complainant contended that he was symptomatic after the discharge nd and hence as per the advice of the 2 opposite party, a CT scan was taken on 24.01.2012. At that time, cyst was detected on the same place where the operation nd was previously done. The 2 opposite party advised further operation to remove the said cyst. However, the complainant went to the Medical College Hospital on 27.01.2012, where the complainant underwent a surgery on 02.02.2012. The solid component was completely removed in the surgery. The complainant was discharged on 11.02.2012 after complete cure and the complainant was advised for O.P. consultation and medicines. To rule out the recurrence, the doctor in the Medical College Hospital advised for the check up after six months.

4. On 24.08.2012, the complainant went for a check-up at the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur and CT scan was taken. The impression was that no enhancing focal lesions were found. The doctor confirmed that there was no recurrence. The follow-up treatment after a lapse of six months conclusively proved that the growth nd was not due to recurrence and was due to negligent act of the 2 opposite party who st did the operation on him. The 1 opposite party was also negligent because he admitted the complainant in the hospital without providing adequate treatment facility. The act of the opposite parties would amount to negligence and hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 and

2.

st

5. The opposite parties filed separate versions. The 1 opposite party

contended that the hospital is having full fledged facilities and remote controlled

highly sophisticated operation table and modern surgical equipment. Adequately

trained staff members are employed in operating the system. The doctors employed

nd are also well qualified and