1. APPEAL is listed today for admission hearing. APPEAL has been filed in the year 2002 and for all these days i.e., for nearly 2 years and more same has remained for admission hearing. The matter was before us on 19th January, 2004 for admission hearing and on that date on the request of appellant''s Advocate we adjourned this matter today for admission hearing. Respondents are present through their representative in response to the process issued and served. Today the learned Advocate for the appellants requested for adjournment of the appeal saying that the matter is entrusted to some other representative.
2. IT is to be stated that the dispute being the consumer dispute the same has to be worked out with expeditious despatch and keeping the appeal for admission hearing for two years, by any reckoning is itself a long way. Furthermore, Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant and Others v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, reported in III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=IV (2002) SLT 714=2002 CTJ 757 SC (Oct. 2002 issue) has disapproved and strongly deprecated the tendency on the part of the Consumer Fora set up under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to go on granting adjournment on mere asking. In view of this, we do not find any justifiable reason for adjournment and we called upon the learned Advocate on record for the appellants to argue for the admission hearing.
We are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on hearing the parties as above and on perusal of the material available in the appeal paper book.
The appellants are original complainants and respondent-original O.Ps. and hereinafter they will be referred to with their said status in the complaint.
3. THE complainants have filed this appeal against order dated 10th April, 2002 passed by District Forum, Sangli dismissing their complaint with a view that the case of alleged negligence on the part of the respondent-doctors in the treatment of complainant No. 1, a minor was not established and that being so there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent-doctors.
District Forum on consideration of the material which was made available before it and as we notice from the record that the good deal of material was relied upon by the parties is correctly appreciated and reached the conclusion as it appears on page 5 of the impugned order which we reproduce. "Regional language omitted."
4. IT is to be stated that this was crux of the grievances of the complainants against O.P.-respondents herein.
However, in the memo of appeal filed we notice that number of points have been raised and specifically taken up before the Forum and the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants also made reference thereof.
However, as the position stands, the matter is properly appreciated and perceived by the District Forum by reaching conclusion as reproduced hereinabove and we do not find any merit in the appeal herein.
5. IT is well established that in the matter of such nature where negligence/deficiency is alleged against the doctor-medical practitioners, then the burden to prove is on the complaining party who makes allegation that are complainants herein. The complainants have failed to discharge their burden, which has resulted into dismissing their complaint. ORDER
1. No merits. 2. Appeal stands dismissed. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Copies to be furnished to the parties.
Appeal dismissed.
