AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Agrawal, J., President
The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act"), against the Impugned Order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jharkhand at Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Revision Petition No. 06 / 2017. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Revision Petition preferred by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS/Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint (hereinafter referred to as "the Hospital"), challenging the interim Order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") in CC No. 231/2012 wherein the Application dated 09.01.2016 filed on behalf of the Hospital and its two Doctors, i.e. Opposite Party No.2 & 3 in the Complaint, was dismissed. In the said Application, a prayer was made on behalf of all the Opposite Parties to set aside the Order dated 02.01.2014 debarring the right of the Hospital to file its Written Version and to set aside the Order dated 03.09.2013 proceeding ex-parte against the Opposite Party No.2 & 3.
Since, the question of law involved in this Revision Petition is, "as to whether the District Forum was justified or not in forfeiting the right of the Hospital to file its written version and proceeding ex-parte against the two Doctors, we would not like to go into the merit of the case.
The relevant facts leading to filing of the present Revision Petition are that the Complainant/Respondent filed Complaint Case No. 231/2012 before the District Forum alleging medical negligence on the part of the Hospital and its two Doctors in treatment of his eyes. On 13.06.2013, the Hospital put in appearance before the District Forum through its Counsel and the vakalatnama was also filed.However, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 did not appear before the District Forum despite service of notice and accordingly, they were proceeded exparte by the District Forum vide Order, dated 03.09.2013. Despite putting appearance on 13.06.2013, the Hospital did not chose to file its Written Version for the reasons best known to them and the District Forum, vide Order dated 02.01.2014, debarred them from filing Written Version. They also did not file any evidence on Oath despite sufficient opportunity having been granted by the District Forum.Consequently, the District Forum, vide Order dated 22.05.2014, closed the right of Hospital to file its evidence on Oath. Nevertheless, the Hospital did not bother to file its Written Notes of Arguments despite liberty being granted by the District Forum. Ultimately, the case was fixed for argument.The District Forum heard the arguments, in part, on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent on 09.09.2015. The Hospital moved an Application dated 09.01.2016 before the District Forum for setting aside the aforesaid Orders dated 02.01.2014 and 03.09.2013. Vide Order dated 02.03.2017, the District Forum rejected the prayer and dismissed the Application dated 09.01.2016 with the following observations:-
"From a perusal of the case record, it will appear that initially OP No. 1 appeared on 13.06.2013 but OP No. 2 & 3 did not appear and as such vide Order dated 03.09.2013, the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against OP Nos. 2 & 3. Case record further shows that OP No. 1 did not file any written version and as such he was debarred from filing written version on 02.01.2014. The present prayer for setting aside Order dated 02.01.2014 can be taken to be a prayer for recall of orders dated 02.01.2014 and 03.09.2013. We find that OP No. 1 appeared on 13.06.13 and was debarred from filing written version on 2. 01.2014. Thereafter the Complainant filed his evidence on Oath and notes of written arguments also. Case record shows that OP No. 1 did not file evidence on oath in spite of giving sufficient opportunity and as such evidence on oath of OP No. 1 was closed on 22.05.2014. Case record further shows that notes of written argument was not filed on behalf of OP No. 1 and as such the case record was fixed for arguments. On 09.09.15, argument in part of the Complainant was heard and thereafter the petition under consideration was filed on 09.01.2016. It is apparent that petition dated 09.01.2016 has been filed on behalf of OP No. 1 at belated stage and without any satisfactory explanation. So far the prayer made on behalf of OP Nos. 2 & 3 is concerned, we find that OP Nos. 2 & 3 have neither put their signatures on this petition nor the Vakalatnama filed on 09.01.2016 appears to have been executed by them. In fact the vakalatnama filed on 09.01.2016 on behalf of the OPs but it does not indicate in any manner that Director, AIIMS indicates that it was executed by Director, AIIMS is representing OP Nos. 2 & 3 also. Under the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, we do not find any merit in the petition dated 09.01.16 of the OPs and as such the prayer made therein is hereby rejected."
Aggrieved by the Order dated 02.03.2017, the Hospital filed Revision Petition No.06/2017 before the State Commission. The State Commission found no jurisdictional error with the Order passed by the District Forum and, Vide Order dated 25.07.2017, dismissed the Revision Petition. The State Commission observed as under :-
" The Petition in question was filed on behalf of all the OPs on 09.01.2016, saying that:-
" 4. That due to communication gap, the written statement could not be filed before this Hon'ble Forum.
On the basis of such vague, general and sweeping ground the OPs prayed for setting aside the said Order dated 02.01.2014 and in effect the said Order dated 03.09.2013 also. There was no satisfactory explanation at all for not filing the written version, after the OP 1 appeared on 13.06.2013, upto 02.01.2014, when it was debarred from filing it; and as to why the application in question was filed after more than two years.
So far as OP No. 2 & 3 are concerned, they did not execute the Vakalatnama and did not sign the said petition filed on 09.01.2016.
After carefully considering the entire matter, we find no error of jurisdiction in the impugned Order."
Feeling aggrieved by the Order, dated 25.07.2017 passed by the State Commission, the Hospital filed the present Revision Petition before us.
We have heard Mr. Anuj Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent and perused the material available on record.
There is no denial to the fact that the Hospital had put in appearance before the District Forum on 13.06.2013. However, the two Doctors, i.e. Opposite Party No.2 and 3 did not appear despite service of notice and accordingly, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.09.2013. Despite being fully aware about the proceedings before the District Forum, the Hospital did not opt either to appear or to file its Written Statement before the District Forum after 13.06.2013. Consequently, vide Order dated 02.01.2014, their right to file the Written Statement was forfeited by the District Forum. Even so, having been granted sufficient opportunity by the District Forum, the Hospital did not file its evidence though the same was filed by the Complainant alongwith its Written Arguments. As a result, vide Order dated 22.05.2014, the District Forum closed the evidence of the Hospital. The final arguments were heart in part in the matter by the District Forum on 09.09.2015 and at this belated stage, the Hospital moved an Application on 09.01.2016, (i.e. after two years of passing of Order dated 02.01.2014) seeking setting aside the Orders dated 03.09.2013 and 02.01.2014.
In the Application dated 09.01.2016, the ground taken for condonation of inordinate delay of two years and for setting aside both the Orders dated 03.09.2013 and 02.01.2014 is as under:-
" That due to communication gap, the written statement could not be filed before this Hon'ble Forum.
That the answering respondents are tendering unconditional apology for the said lapse. "
The Complainant objected the Application filed by the Opposite Parties on following grounds:-
"i. The petition dated 09.01.2016 has been filed on behalf of all the three OPs but the vakalatnama filed on 09.01.16 has not been executed by OP Nos. 2 & 3.
ii. OP Nos. 2 & 3 have not authorized anybody to represent them Mr. Ajay Kumar who has sworn affidavit in support of petition dated 09.01.2016 had no authority to represent the OPs to file the affidavit in question.
iii. The OPs have not put their signatures on the petition.
iv. Opposite Party No. 1 had knowledge about the pendency of this case and had filed a vakalatnama also on 13.06.13."
Since the Hospital failed to give a "Sufficient Cause" for condonation of inordinate delay of more than two years in filing an Application dated 09.01.2016 seeking to set aside the Orders dated 03.09.2013 and 02.01.2014, the District Forum, in our considered view, rightly dismissed the Application and no error had been committed by the State Commission in upholding the said order. It is trite that discretion to condone delay has to be exercised judiciously, based on facts and circumstances of each case. "Sufficient Cause" cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides is attributable to the party praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour. It is equally well settled that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its vigour. An unlimited period of limitation leads to uncertainty, whereas limitation prevents deprivation of what the successful party may have acquired. Section 13 (1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and corresponding Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides as under:-
" refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty one days from the date of its admission to the Opposite Party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case withini a period of thirty days on such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum."
The Hospital had put in appearance on 13.06.2013 before the District Forum and as such they were required to file its written version within a period of 30 days or maximum the 45 days from the said date. However, they did not file their Written Version till 02.01.2014 when they were debarred from filing the Written Version. They also did not file their evidence and it was closed on 22.05.2014. The District Forum granted liberty to the Hospital to file their Written Arguments and even the same were not filed.
At this juncture, we would like to place reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Ltd. - (2020) 5 SCC 757 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to its earlier decisions including J.J. Merchants Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi - (2002) 6 SCC 635 has held that the Consumer Fora has no power to extend the period of filing of the Written Version beyond the statutory period of 45 days. The Apex Court has held as under:-
" The legislature in its wisdom has provided for filing of complaint or appeals beyond the period specified under the relevant provisions of the Act and Regulations, if there is sufficient cause given by the party, which has to be to the satisfaction of the concerned authority. No such discretion has been provided for under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act for filing a response to the complaint beyond the extended period of forty five days. Had the legislature not wanted to make such provision mandatory but only directory, the provision for further extension of the period for filing the response beyond forty days would have been provided, as had been provided for in the cases of filing of complaint and appeals. To carve out an exception in a specific provision of the statute is not within the jurisdiction of the Courts, and if it was so done, it would amount to legislating or inserting a provision into the statute, which was not permissible. By specifically enacting a provision under Sub-section (3) of Section 13, with a specific clarification that violation of the principles of natural justice shall not be called in question where the procedure prescribed Under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act has been followed or complied with, the intention of the legislature was clear that mere denial of further extension of time for filing the response (by the opposite party) would not amount to denial or violation of the principles of natural justice. This provision of Section 13(3) reinforces the time limit specified in Section 13(2)(a) of the Act. [17]
" To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged Under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days Under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint."
For the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference u/s 21(b) of the Act. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no costs.