Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/211/2022dismissed

The Registrar, v. M.Shakilal Banu,

2022-06-16Honourable Mr Justice B.Pugalendhi3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.06.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and CMP(MD)No.951 of 2022 The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council, New No.914, Old No.569, Ponamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai - 600 106.

... Petitioner/3rd Adversary Vs.

1.M.Shakilal banu ... 1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Dr.E.Ramesh 3.M/s.Aarthi Hospital, Rep. by its Managing Director, Dr.R.Gomathi ... 2nd & 3rd Respondents/1st & 2nd Adversaries PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records in connection with the complaint filed by the 1st respondent in CC.No.256 of 2021, pending on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli and strike off the same insofar as the revision petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sathish Babu For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil for R.1 Mr.Muthugeethaiyan for Mr.S.Senthil for R.2 & R.3 ***** 1/3

ORDER

The first respondent has lodged a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli, in C.C.No.256 of 2021, as against M/s.Aarthi Hospital, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District and one Dr.E.Ramesh / respondents 3 & 2 herein, claiming compensation for the deficiency in service. In the said complaint, the first respondent has also arrayed the Tamil Nadu Medical Council as a party. In order to strike off their name from the complaint, the Tamil Nadu Medical Council has preferred the instant revision petition.

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner / Tamil Nadu Medical Council submitted that the Council has nothing to do with the mischiefs, whatever, alleged in the complaint and the concerned Doctor and the Hospital have already been arrayed as respondents in the complaint. In fact, the Medical Council has also acted upon the complaint of the first respondent / complainant and has taken action as against the second respondent herein / Dr.E.Ramesh. 3.Learned Counsel for the first respondent / complainant, on instructions, submitted that the first respondent is restricting her relief as against the respondents 2 & 3 herein alone, however reserving her right to examine the officials of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council to substantiate her case before the consumer forum. To that extent, a memo dated 16.06.

2022 duly signed by the learned Counsel for the first respondent is placed before this Court. 4.Recording the said memo dated 16.06.2022, this civil revision petition stands allowed and the name of the petitioner / Tamil Nadu Medical Council is stricken-off from the complaint in C.C.No.256 of 2021 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli. The Consumer Forum shall endeavor to expedite the trial and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS III) // True Copy // /06/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Gk 2/3

To The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli.

Copy to:

The Registrar Judicial, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.AAV PARTNER, Advocate ( SR-26367[F] dated 17/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.M.P.SENTHIL, Advocate ( SR-26490[F] dated 17/06/2022 ) 16.06.2022 SS(27/06/2022) 3P 5C 3/3