Kerala High Court
Lakshmi Priya vs Sheela Sadasivan on 23 July, 2025
2025:KER:54682
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23 DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1947
OP(NCDRC) NO. 20 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
LAKSHMI PRIYA
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O NEELAMEGAM ,ATHURASHRAM LADIES HOSTEL ,OPP
PUDUSSESERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KANIKODE, PALAKKAD,
KERALA, PIN - 678621
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MANUMON A.
SHRI.REBIN VINCENT GRALAN
RESPONDENT/S:
SHEELA SADASIVAN
W/O DR K K CHANDRA BABU,GYNECOLOGIST,ERNAKULAM
MEDICAL CENTRE ,KOCHI, PIN - 682028
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION (NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P (NCDRC) No.20 of 2025
2
2025:KER:54682
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No.18/2019 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam. The complaint was submitted by the petitioner, against the respondent herein, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the respondent, who is a Doctor.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the marriage between the petitioner and her husband was solemnized on 19.01.2018, and the petitioner and her husband approached the respondent for treatment of bleeding and pain that occurred to the petitioner due to the intercourse with her husband. According to the petitioner, during the treatment, the respondent referred the petitioner for HIV test but such test was not prescribed for the husband. It was also alleged that the respondent gave the documents of the petitioner's treatment without the consent of petitioner to her husband with a wrong date and dishonestly, and these documents were used by the husband of the petitioner in the divorce case filed by the husband against the petitioner, thereby violating her rights. It O.P (NCDRC) No.20 of 2025 3 2025:KER:54682 was in these circumstances that the petitioner had approached the District Forum by filing the aforesaid complaint.
3. After considering the complaint, the Consumer Forum dismissed the said complaint as per Ext.P9. Challenging Ext.P9, Appeal No.24/2024 was submitted by the petitioner before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was dismissed as per Ext.P11. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition No.3029/2024 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, but the same was also dismissed as per Ext.P13. The petitioner even though challenged the same by approaching the Honourable Supreme Court by filing a SLP(C) No.8644/2025, the petitioner was relegated to approach the High Court and challenge the revisional judgment of the National Dispute Redressal Commission, in the light of the judgment in M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd v. Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 877]. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances.
O.P (NCDRC) No.20 of 20254
2025:KER:54682
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who argued at length, with respect to the irregularities/ illegalities in the findings of the District Consumer Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that, the Forums failed to consider the contents of the complaint and the evidence on record in a proper manner.
6. I have carefully gone through the records. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission, specifically considered the orders passed by both the Forums in detail, and found that the orders were passed, after specifically examining the documents made available by both the parties. The National Commission in Ext.P13 order took note of the fact that, in order to ascertain the medical condition of the petitioner, the District Commission sought the help of a Government Hospital, to appoint an expert Doctor to evaluate the treatment and prescription given to the complainant. The contents of the said report, as extracted in Ext.P13, in which the reasons highlighted by the petitioner as the deficiency of service O.P (NCDRC) No.20 of 2025 5 2025:KER:54682 on the part of the respondent, were specifically considered. The relevant observations in the aforesaid report are as follows:
"From the above treatment details shown in the medical records, it is noted that for the treatment of the case standard procedures has been followed by the Doctor.
Regarding the diagnosis, it is relevant to point out that Vaginismus is a painful spasm of the vagina during attempted coitus which can be primary or secondary in nature. Primary vaginismus is not associated with any organic cause but may be psychosexual in origin. Secondary vaginismus may be due to local painful lesions like vulvitis or narrow introitus. For the effective treatment psycho therapy is essential for both partners. Treatment may prolong for few weeks as regular use of dialators may be necessary. Surgery may also be indicated if there is a tight hymen. (Rel: Chapter 19 in the text book of Gynaecology by Dr. Sheila Balakrishnan, Professor and Head of Reproductive Medicine, Govt. Medical College, Trivandum 3 Edition and DANFORH'S Obstetrics and Gynaecology - 10 edition). In the complainants case other than the first consultation no evidence of follow up checkups are available. As regards the HIV antibody testing suggested, the complainants consent with signature is available in the medical record. From the medical records it is also noted that the complainant's husband has requested to give the complete details as on 24.01.2018 for consultation elsewhere. Regarding sharing of the details, as per clause 3.6 of the National HIV counselling and testing services guidelines issued by the National AIDS control Organisation (NACO), Govt. of O.P (NCDRC) No.20 of 2025 6 2025:KER:54682 India, the counsellor may share a persons HIV test result with the persons partner or partners."
This was specifically taken note of by the National Commission and found that, no circumstances are in existence for exercising the jurisdiction vested upon the National Commission under Section 51(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
7. After carefully going through the observations made by the National Commission, the orders of the State and District Commission and also the report of the expert, which is extracted above, I do not find that the views taken by the National Commission and also the other Commissions, are improbable. As far as the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is concerned, it can be exercised only in cases where, the orders impugned in the petition are perverse in nature or it is completely contrary to the statutory provisions. Even in cases where another view is possible, the same cannot be interfered with. For deciding the issue, reappreciation of evidence is also not warranted. If the view taken in the impugned orders is probable, under no circumstances the same can be interfered with. In this case, despite going through the documents O.P (NCDRC) No.20 of 2025 7 2025:KER:54682 produced on record, including the orders passed by the three Forums, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order, as the reasons for arriving at the conclusion in all the orders are clearly mentioned and it appears to be reasonable and probable. Therefore, I do not find any scope for interference.
Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE rpk O.P (NCDRC) No.20 of 2025 8 2025:KER:54682 APPENDIX OF OP(NCDRC) 20/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION CC 18/2019 DATED 02.01.2019 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2018 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF DIVORCE PETITION HMOP NO. 75/2019 DATED 04.07.2018 ALONG WITH TRANSLATED COPY Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF IA 102 OF 2018 DATED 04.07.2018 IN UDUMALPET SUB COURT, TAMILNADU Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF HMOP 75 OF 2019 DATED 29.03.2019 IN UDUMALPET SUB COURT, TAMILNADU Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN CC 18/2019 DATED 05.10.2021 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED (NIL) TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IN CC 18/2019 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF CC 18/19 DATED 22.05.2023 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CC 18/2019 DATED 19.12.2023 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS NO. 24/2024 DATED 12.01.2024 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN AS NO.
24/2024 DATED 16.10.2024
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION
NO. 3029 OF 2024 DATED 21.11.2024
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN REVISION
PETITION NO. 3029 OF 2024 DATED
31.12.2024
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SPL NO.
8644/2025 DATED 27.02.2025
Exhibit P15 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN SPL
NO. 8644/2025 DATED 04.04.2025