P.Mani vs SRI RAMACHANDRA MEDICAL COLLEGE

THIS action came up for admission before us today.

IT is not as if this action is coming up for admission for the first time and as a matter of fact, it came for admission for more than three times. On all such occasions learned Counsel appearing for the complainant M/s. Gajalakshmi Rajendran was called absent and no representation was made on her behalf. Today also, the said learned Counsel is absent and no representation is made on her behalf. In such a situation, there is no other go for us except to pass orders of course after perusal of the averments in the complaint and other connected documents filed also with it. The sum and substance of the complaint is to the following effect :

The complainant by name one P. Mani, it appears was suffering from untold pain and swelling in his right knee and for such an ailment he underwent surgery at the opposite party hospital, namely Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, represented by its Director, Chennai-116. Huge amounts, it appears were spent by him for the surgery he had undergone. No remedy was offered for the melody he was suffering by the said opposite party hospital. He also took treatment in other hospital and the pain he would say still subsist of course at a reduced level. Because there was no remedy offered by the opposite party for the melody with which he was suffering despite the surgery undergone by him at the hands of the doctors of the opposite party hospital, he would say that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

HE had not alleged any negligence on the part of the doctors who performed the operation at the opposite party hospital by way of averments in the complaint. Medical experts like doctors cannot at all be expected to give guarantee to provide remedy for the melody with which the patient was suffering by any treatment given to him or her. The fact that the remedy is not provided by surgical treatment does not mean that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the medical experts who performed the operation. As such we are of the view that there are no prima facie materials either by way of incorporation of averments in the complaint and other materials in the shape of other connected documents filed alongwith it to point out that there was any deficiency in the shape of negligence on the part of the doctor who performed the operation on the complainant of the opposite party hospital. In this view of the matter, the complaint deserves rejection in limine.

IN fine, the complaint is rejected in limine. Complaint dismissed in limine.