single judge allows a writ petition pending since 2010 challenging consumer forum orders grants liberty to challenge judgment in statutory forum citing alternative remedy.
Writ petition closed granting liberty to challenge Ext.P6 order in accordance to law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 1471 OF 2010
PETITIONER:
DR.BINU ANN PAUL, PHYSICIAN, SREE SUDHEENDRA MEDICAL MISSION,XXXVIII/1409, CHITTOOR RAOD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018, (PRESENTLY WORKING AS PHYSICIAN, LITTLE FLOWER HOSPITAL, ANGAMALY, ANGAMALY P.O.,ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT) BY ADV SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 N.A.VARGHESE, S/O.ANTHA, AGED 67 YEARS, NILAVARETH HOUSE, PUTHIYA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN – 682 025. 2 THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT. 3 THE MANAGER, SREE SUDHEENDRA MEDICAL MISSION, XXXVIII/1409, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018. 4 DR.SONY MATHAI, PHYSICIAN, SREE SUDHEENDRA MEDICAL MISSION, XXXVIII/1409, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018. 5 DR. T.LP.PRABHU, CHIEF PHYSICIAN, SREE SUDHEENDRA MEDICAL MISSION, XXXVIII/1409, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018. BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.BIJU MANJINIKARA SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM SMT.R.RANJANIE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.1471/2010
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
W.P.(C)No.1471 of 2010
Dated this the 14th day of December,2021
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following
prayers:
“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P5 order of the 2nd respondent and Ext.P6 judgment of the learned Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Thiruvananthapuram;
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to refer the dispute involved in Ext.P1 complaint to the Board of Expert Doctors or an Expert Doctor, by allowing Ext.P4 petition;
iii) issue such other writ, order or direction which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order
passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Vazhuthacaud,
Thiruvananthapuram. Admittedly, the petitioner
3
WP(C) NO.1471/2010
has got an alternative remedy against Ext.P6 order. This writ petition is pending before this Court from 2010 onwards. The service to the 1st respondent is not complete even now. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, he was not able to contact the 1st respondent. This Court in Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram v. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2021(5)KHC 236] observed that, when there is an alternative remedy, the writ Court need not interfere in such cases. In such circumstances, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P6 order in accordance to law, this writ petition can be closed.
Therefore, this writ petition is closed granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P6 order in accordance to law.
Sd/-
DM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
WP(C) NO.1471/2010
4
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1471/2010
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF C.C.458/2008 ON THE FILE OF |
|---|---|
| THE LEARNED DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES | |
| REDRESSAL FORUM AT ERNAKULAM [EXCEPT THE ANNEXURES]. |
|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH SUMMARY ISSUED BY DR.K.HARI, CONSULTANT PHYSICIAN OF MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED OBJECTION DATED 29.12.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT ERNAKULAM. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF I.A.316/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED DISTRICT |
| CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT ERNAKULAM. |
|
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.7.2009 IN I.A.316/09 IN CC 458/08 OF THE |
| LEARNED DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT ERNAKULAM. |
|
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT 11.12.2009 IN R.P.NO.62/2009 OF THE LEARNED KERALA |
| STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL | |
| COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed when the petitioner has an alternative remedy and service to the first respondent is incomplete.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram v. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and othersReferred¶29
Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram v. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2021(5)KHC 236]
Dr.Binu Ann Paul
N.A.Varghese
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam
The Manager, Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission
Dr.Sony Mathai
Dr. T.LP.Prabhu
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
