AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Member
The matter relates to whether an amendment application of original written statement is admissible during proceedings before the District Forum.
We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. Perused the entire material on record.
The Complaint of alleged medical negligence was filed before the District Forum (now ‘District Commission’), Varanasi on 10.06.2015 wherein the Opposite Party filed Written Statement on 07.06.2016 alongwith the documents related to treatment of the patient. During the stage of arguments on 04.01.2018, the District Commission accepted the application to amend the written statement and accordingly the Petitioner filed amendment application on 12.01.2018. But, the Complainant filed objections on 05.03.2018. However, the District Commission without considering the documents rejected the amendment application on 05.10.2020.
Being aggrieved the Opposite Party filed Revision Petition No.44/2020 before the State Commission and it was dismissed. Hence, this Revision Petition.
We gave our thoughtful consideration to the arguments. The proceedings held before the District Commission are as below:
(a) On 10.06.2015 Complaint before District Consumer Commission, Varanasi filed.
(b) On 07.06.2016 Written Statement filed.
(c) On 21.04.2017 the entire treatment records were filed.
(d) On 04.01.2018 request to file amendment in Written Statement was allowed.
(e) On 12.01.2018 amendment application to amend the written statement was filed.
(f) On 05.03.2018 objection to amendment application filed.
(g) Vide order dated 05.10.2020 amendment application rejected by DCDRC, Varanasi solely on the ground that since treatment records are already on record there is no need to allow amendment application was filed belated.
(h) A revision petition was filed before SCDRC, Lucknow against the order dated 05.10.2020 passed by DCDRC, Varanasi.
(i) The SCDRC, Lucknow vide order dated 24.02.2021 dismissed the revision petition solely on the ground that the amendment application was filed belated.
It is pertinent to note that the original Complaint relates to alleged medical negligence. As per the record of the District Commission Varanasi, the pleadings (written version, rejoinder and respective evidence by way of affidavits) were completed.
We further note that on 12.01.2018 the OP filed an application for amendment of the written version to the extent to file treatment record which was not available earlier. The contention of the Opposite Party that they were not bringing any new evidence on record, thus it will not change the nature of case. The learned Counsel for the Opposite Party relied upon following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
(a) In Prithi Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. Amrit Singh & Ors. case, it was held that amendment can be allowed even at appellate stage reported.
(b) In Pradeep Singhvi & Anr. Vs. Heero Dhankani & Ors. , case held that where proposed amendment in written statement did not have the effect of drastically altering the nature of defence or withdrawing an admission made earlier, can be allowed at any stage of proceedings.
(c) This National Commission in Natasha Verma Vs. Emmar Mgf Land Ltd. held that proposed amendment which otherwise does not change the nature of case or cause of action can be allowed.
(d) In the case State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Modern Tent house & Anr. the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the facts were sought to elaborate the facts originally pleaded in the written statement, amplification of defense already taken is sought and the proposed amendment does not introduce any new defense, the amendment application is liable to be allowed.
(e) In the case Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. K.K. Modi & Ors. have held that it is mandatory to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions of controversies between the parties.
(f) In case Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan Singh held that amendment application filed at belated stage be allowed for doing complete justice, the other party can be compensated by cost.
He further relied upon the recent decision of this Commission in Shreya Milind Nimonkar Vs. Dr. Seema Shanbhag held that the power to allow the amendment of complaint/suit is wide. The consumer fora should not adopt hyper technical approach while considering amendment application to avoid multiplicity of litigations.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent is that the amendment application was prepared by the Opposite Party totally after thought. It was prepared during argument after completing proceedings which it will change nature of the case. Therefore, amendment of Written Statement shall be rejected. He relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A.7251/2008 in the case of Vidya Bai & Ors. Vs. Padamlata & Ors. AIR-2009 SC 433.
Based on the foregoing discussion, in our view, filing the medical record will not change the nature of case. The medical record is crucial document having evidentiary value in the cases of medical negligence. Thus, we don’t want to adopt just technical approach which will cause further delay in adjudication. Thus, the District Commission is directed to take on record the written version and proceed further as per law. At this stage, without touching merit of the case, the Revision Petition is allowed and Order of State Commission is set aside.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Varanasi on 18.07.2022.
The District Commission is requested to conclude the matter expeditiously within three months.
The Registry shall send the copy of this Order within a week to the District Commission and the parties through e-mail and speed-post.
The Revision Petition is allowed.