Dr. P. Sathish Reddy vs Shantha Bai & 8 Ors.

This Revision Petition No.2131 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner/appellant/OP3-Dr. P. Sathish Reddy challenging the order of the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (State Commission, hereafter) dated 23.07.2019 in I.A. No.1186 of 2018 in F.A. No.488 of 2018. Vide this order, the State Commission had disallowed the I.A. No.1186 of 2018 and consequently, the appeal had also been dismissed. The impugned order of the Stated Commission dated 23.07.2019 is as below:

"This petition is filed by the Petitioner / Appellant under Section 13(3) (B) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 may be pleased to condone the delay of (685) days in filling the present appeal in this Hon'ble Commission and pass such other order or order's as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Today also no representation for the Petitioner even though the matter is posted under the caption of dismissal. R1 present. Hence, the application is dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed."

Facts of the case are, very briefly, that respondent no.1/ complainant-Smt. Shantha Bai (complainant hereafter) had filed a Consumer Complaint No.699 of 2013 against, inter-alia, OP 2- BBR Multi Speciality Hospital and OP 3-Dr. P. Sathish Reddy. After affording opportunity to all the parties, the District Forum had allowed the complaint in part and held OP 2 and OP 3 jointly and severally liable for mental agony and thereafter awarded a reasonable compensation to the complainant. The operational part of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Form-III, Hyderabad (District Forum, hereafter) order dated 20.09.2016 is as below:

"In the light of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that a total sum of Rs.6,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable for medical negligence caused by them.

The Complainant is entitled to a reasonable compensation.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed with the following points:-

The Opposite Party No.2 and 3 shall pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.5.00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) towards damages and medical expenses incurred.

The Opposite Party No.2 and 3 shall pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for mental agony and anxiety caused.

The case against Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No.4 to 9 is dismissed.

Time for the compliance is Thirty (30) days only."

The grounds taken on behalf of the petitioner/OP3 in this revision petition and during arguments are that the District Forum had proceeded to pass its order without serving notice on OP 3 and thereby denying him opportunity of being heard to represent his case. Further, once OP 3 came to know, (E.A. No.16 of 2017 was noticed to him on 16.8.2017), he filed an application before the District Forum for recall of the order of the District Forum. However, the same was not entertained. He thereafter approached the Hon'ble High Court at Telangana in W.P. No.32117 of 2017 whereupon he was directed to file an appeal before the State Commission. His appeal, F.A. No.488 of 2018, was accordingly filed, along with I.A. No.1186 of 2018 seeking condonation of delay of 685 days in filing the appeal. It is this I.A. and the appeal which has been dismissed by the State Commission vide the impugned order (supra).

We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission. It is clear from a plain reading of the impugned order (supra) that on the said date, there was no representation for the petitioner even though the matter was posted under the caption of dismissal. It is for this reason that the application for delay, I.A. No.1186 of 2018, had been dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently, the appeal itself stood dismissed.

The ground taken that he was not served notice of the consumer complaint is at variance with the clear noting in para 5 of the order of the District Forum which reads as under: "Opposite Party No.1, 3 and 8 were served a notice of appearance, but since failed to appear have called absent." Clearly, therefore, the petitioner/OP3 was served notice but had failed to appear or be represented. Further, OP2-BBR Multi Specialty Hospital, had filed its written version before the District Forum, leading the Forum to note, in para 3 of it's order, as follows:

"Dr.P.Sathish Reddy is the only person to explain whether the treatment given on the above said dates was correct or not. Thus, merely fling prescriptions of BBR Multi Specialty Hospital, cannot claim or allege that there is negligence on the part of this Opposite Party. But this Opposite Party can as a experienced medical professional that the treatment was given by Dr.P.Satish Reddy to the Complainant (as per the records) is correct."

It therefore is fairly clear that the plea of non-service of notice and the plea that the OP3 came to know only when execution application was filed is false. Not only had he been served, the OP2-BBR Multi Specialty Hospital where he was working had also been served and had indeed filed its written version. There is no way therefore that it can be held by OP3 that he did not know about the proceedings before the District Forum.

Further, to explain the delay of 685 days in filing of its appeal, recourse has been taken to filing an application for recall of the order of the District Forum and thereafter, a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana. Since the permissible period for filing of appeal against the order of the District Forum was only 30 days, and the order of the District Forum was passed on 20.09.2016, the above can only be seen as a desperate but ill advised attempt to gain time as well as not execute the order of the District Forum. The State Commission has therefore after giving an opportunity to the petitioner/OP3, correctly dismissed both the application for delay as well as the appeal itself. We have no reason to disagree.

In view of the discussion above, this Revision Petition No.2131 of 2019 is dismissed at the stage of admission.