CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT MADURAI @ District Court Campus, Madurai – 20.

Present:Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH ... PRESIDENT F.A. No.636 of 2023 and R.P. No.43 of 2023 (Against the Common Order, dated 30.06.2023, in CMP Nos.53 & 55 of 2022 in C.C. No.41 of 2022, on the file of the DCDRC, Kanyakumari Dt. @ Nagercoil)

Orders, dt: 16.06.2025 T.M.Nadar @

Thankarajan Muthayyan Nadar, No.1-148, Fair Field, Viralivilai Thekkanmuri Veedu, Kuravancode – Pottaiwaram Rd., Kirathur Post, Kanyakumari – 629 160. … Appellant/Rev. Petr./

Complainant.

Vs.

1.Dr.Ramola Jenet Diyana, (Rtd. Professor/HOD of Obstetrics & Gyn. – Tirunelveli Medical College & Hospital), 2.Dr.B.L.Priyankashri, 3.Dr.Kiruthika, 4.Dr.Rajesh

5.Dr.Vimal (Dentist) – Manager, RR-1 to 5 – at El-Shaddai Nursing Home, No.38, 7th Street, Main Road, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli – 627007.

6.Dr.Ramanayagam Anbhurajan, 7.Dr.Raichal, 8.Dr.Senthil Kumar, 9.Dr.Karthikeyan, RR-6 to 9 at - Peace Health Centre, 48 H/5, South Bye-Pass Rd., Melapalayam Post, Near New Bus Stand, Tirunelveli 627 005. ... Respondents/Respondents/

Opposite Parties.

Appellant, appearing Party-in-Person For Respondents 1, 2 & 5 : Mr.J.Sureshkumar For Respondent No.6 : Mr.P.A.Steven Raj Respondents 3, 4, 7, 8 & 9 : Served and called absent M/s.V.Balaji, M/s. K.Kumaran and M/s. P.Pethu Rajesh – appearing as Amicus Curiae.

These matters were taken up on 20.03.2025 and, after hearing the respective sides as well as the amicus curiae and upon perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

COMMON ORDER

R.Subbiah, J. President .

–

The appellant herein filed the main case in C.C.

No.41 of 2022 as complainant before the DCDRC, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil, as against the OPs, who are the respondents herein, alleging that the medical negligence and unfair trade practice on their part had caused the death of his daughter who, according to him, had died either during the C-Section surgery or during the unauthorized additional procedure/Hysterectomy done to her at the Clinic of OP Nos.1 to 5 and further management at the Health Centre of OP Nos.6 to 9.

2. It is during the course of the proceedings in the main case that was taken up on file after admission, OP Nos.1 to 5 moved CMP No.53 of 2022, seeking the District Commission to dismiss the complaint for maintainability on the ground that the complainant, who is the father of the deceased, is not a consumer and a similar petition was also moved by OP Nos.6 to 9 in CMP No.55 of 2022. By its common order, dated 30.06.2023, the District Commission allowed the CMPs filed by the respective OPs, holding inter alia that it is only the husband of the deceased who had hired the services of the OPs/petitioners and hence, the complainant has no locus standi to maintain the complaint and consequently, dismissed the main case as not maintainable. It is as against the said common order passed in the CMPs culminating in consequential dismissal of the main Consumer Complaint; the complainant has filed the Revision Petition as well as the First Appeal.

3. Inasmuch as going into the merits of the case to find out whether a case of medical negligence is made out is absolutely a futile exercise before answering the following two dominant core issues that stem from the impugned order, a) Whether the father of the married daughter/deceased, can fit himself into the definition of consumer to seek consumer justice over his daughter’s death due to alleged medical negligence that too in the presence of her husband on the ground that the son-in-law is not only uninterested in filing or pursuing the case but also he is in collusion with the OPs?

b) Can it be a right practice and procedure on the part of the District Commission to entertain the Miscellaneous Petitions in question particularly after taking the complaint on file after scrutiny at the pre- admission stage, for deciding t