DR. ILLANGOVAN Vs. MRS. R. FATHIMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Review Applicant is the 11th respondent in WP.No.94 of 2016. The first respondent herein as the writ petitioner therein, filed the same for mandamus directing the respondents therein to take appropriate criminal action against the Review applicant herein (11th respondent therein) and also to direct the 8th respondent therein namely the Tamil Nadu Medical Council to cancel the registration of the Review Applicant, by considering her representation dated 21.11.2015.

(2.) This Court, after hearing the writ petitioner as party-in-person, Mr.G.Shankar, learned counsel for the 8th respondent therein, Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 9 and 10 therein and Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel for the 11th respondent therein (review application herein), passed an order on 24.11.2017, directing the Tamil Nadu Medical Council to consider and decide the complaint made by the writ petitioner on merits, after conducting proper enquiry and also by giving due opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner as well as the 11th respondent therein (review applicant herein). It was also specifically expressed therein that this Court was not inclined to go into the rival contentions of the parties on the merits of the complaint made by the writ petition, as it is for the 8th respondent therein viz., Tamil Nadu Medical Council to consider and decide the same on merits. This Court, further observed therein that both the parties should be given an opportunity of hearing and it is open to them to place relevant materials before the Tamil Nadu Medical Council at the time of enquiry, so as to enable the said Council, to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, in accordance with law.

(3.) Now, this review application is filed seeking to review the order made in WP.No.94 of 2016 dated 27.11.2017, by contending that the present review applicant has already filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.5737 of 2016 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, against the writ petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,20,500/- together with 12% interest towards the treatment charges, which the writ petitioner failed to pay and that the said suit was decreed exparte on 17.11.2017. It is also contended that the writ petitioner was served with notice in the said suit and she has also filed vakalat through her counsel on 19.01.2017. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petitioner being aware of all those facts should have brought the same to the notice of this Court at the time when the writ petition was taken up for hearing in order to arrive at a just and proper conclusion. Thus, it is contended that the writ petitioner has deliberately suppressed those vital factors before this Court and consequently, she is not entitled for the relief granted. It is further contended that the counsel, who appeared for the 11th respondent therein has not brought to the notice of this Court about those vital facts and therefore, the review applicant is forced to change his counsel and file this review application through the present counsel. Thus, it is contended that the writ petition was filed as a counter blast to the suit filed by the review applicant for recovery of the said sum which also came to be decreed exparte on 17.11.2017.