IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 74 of 2009()
1. JOEL JOJI, S/O. JOJI JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
... Respondent
2. DR. MOHAN K. ABRAHAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.ROY CHACKO
For Respondent :SRI.K.SRIKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :23/03/2010
O R D E R
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tr.P.(C). No. 74 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010.
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of I.O.P. No.22 of
2008 pending before the Sub Court, Ernakulam to the
competent court at Kottayam.
2. The parents of Joel Joji found their child
very sick. At the age of two and a half years, he
developed urinary problems. Initially the child was taken
to Medical Centre at Kottayam for treatment. The
doctors, who attended to the child opined that the child
needs a surgery. They have referred the child to Amrita
Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre,
Edappally and recommended Dr. Mohan K. Abraham,
who is an expert in that particular field. The child was
admitted in the said hospital on 8.8.2006 and the doctor
named above attended to the child and recommended a
Tr.P.C. 74/2009. 2
major surgery. It was done. After surgery when they
returned home, the child developed fever and they had
taken back the child to the hospital on 5.12.2006. The child
was admitted as inpatient for a few days. Things did not
improve. Suffice it to say that later on the child was treated
in yet another hospital and the illness of the child persisted.
The petitioners blamed the doctor at Amrita Institute for not
having done the surgery properly. They instituted a suit for
damages against the Institute and the doctor.
3. As the parents of Joel Joji are poor, they sought
permission of the court to institute the suit as indigent
persons and that is pending.
4. It is pointed out that the parents the child
though employed got meagre salary and they find it difficult
to meet both ends meet. They say that it is extremely
difficult for them to travel to Ernakulam to attend the court
on the frequent posting dates. They pray that the
proceedings be transferred to a court at Kottayam, which
Tr.P.C. 74/2009. 3
would be of considerable help and convenience to them and
save them from incurring expenses.
5. The petition is opposed by the respondents,
who pointed out that there is no justification for the transfer
sought for by the petitioner. The courts at Kottayam have
no jurisdiction and there is no question of transfer of the
case. It is also pointed out that even going by the
averments in the petition, the parents of the child are
employed and they are deriving income. There is nothing to
show that their claim they are in financial difficulties is true.
Moreover, being a civil case, it is not necessary for them to
attend the court on all posting dates and therefore the claim
has no basis.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
pointed out that he was not relying on any legal principles
for seeking a transfer, but was seeking the mercy of this
court to exercise its jurisdiction in a sympathetic manner so
as to enable the petitioners to conduct the case properly and
effectively. Though the parents are employed, the income
Tr.P.C. 74/2009. 4
derived is very meager and it is extremely difficult for them
with that income to come over to Ernakulam and conduct
the case. Moreover, they will have to pay the fee to their
Advocate also. It is therefore prayed that this court may
consider the matter in a lenient and sympathetic manner.
7. True going by the averments in the petition and
in the plaint the court at Kottayam cannot have jurisdiction
in the matter. However, it is pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the parents of the child find it
extremely difficult to come over to Ernakulam and to meet
the expenses for the litigation. All that they have prayed for
is for a transfer of the case to any court at Kottayam, so that
they can appear before the court whenever it is needed.
They have also stated that they will be able to meet their
counsel quite often and get necessary advise in the matter.
8. Considering the above fact, it is felt that the
request made is only just and reasonable. No particular
infirmity or injury is caused to the respondents by the
transfer. At any rate their appearance before the court
Tr.P.C. 74/2009. 5
below is much less than that of the plaintiffs. Also financially
they will not have any difficulties unlike the case of the
petitioners.
In the result , this petition is allowed and I.O.P.
No.22 of 2008 and other proceedings pending before the
Sub court, Ernakulam stands transferred to Additional Sub
court, Kottayam for trial and disposal.
P. BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE
sb.