Mahipal S.Sachdev vs Jagdish Chandra Kundra

COMPLAINT was filed before the State Commission, Delhi by the Respondent claiming compensation of Rs.19,88,000/- with 24% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment of the said amount. The pleadings of the parties were completed and interrogatories filed were answered. On 13.10.2005, the matter was listed for final disposal on 11.5.2006. The matter came up for arguments on 11.5.2006, 20.7.2006, 7.9.2006 and 10.10.2006. Arguments were partly heard on 7.9.2006. On 10.10.2006, it was ordered by the State Commission that controversy can be resolved by directing Head of Department for Ophthalmology of AIIMS to examine the complainant with regard to his left eye vision as early as possible and positively prior to the date fixed in the matter and send the report in a sealed cover. The matter was listed on 23.11.2006. On 23.11.2006, an application was filed duly signed by the complainant for withdrawal of the complaint under Order 23 rule 1 &3 CPC. Along with the application affidavit of Respondent/Complainant as also of the petitioner was filed. On this application an order was passed by the State Commission on 23.11.2006 itself allowing the withdrawal application as also dismissal of the complaint as withdrawn.

THE petitioner has sent letter dated 27.10.2010 to this Commission stating that though complaint had been allowed to be withdrawn, yet, the petitioner was shocked while carrying out a random search on website on Google.com wherein an alleged order dated 25.4.2006 purportedly shown to have been passed by the State Commission is being displayed. It is further stated that the said order dated 25.4.2006 has been uploaded on the official website of the State Commission therein projecting that the said order dated 25.4.2006 has been passed in the complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant. In the said order the OP including the petitioner has been held liable to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- as also cost of Rs.5,000/- on account of being held guilty for limited deficiency in not administering the required post-operative injection to the complainant. It is further stated that no such order was ever passed in the said proceedings by the State Commission against the OP including the petitioner. According to the petitioner, some mischief has been played by someone in the State Commission in order to harm the reputation of the petitioner. THE petitioner has, therefore, sought removal of the alleged order dated 25.4.2006 purported to have been passed in Complaint bearing number CC 288 of 1999 from the official or any other website of the State Commission as also an inquiry into the matter and to punish persons responsible for the mischief. The records of the said complaint CC No. 282 of 1999 were called from the State Commission. The State Commission was also asked to send records of CC No.288 of 1999 in which the alleged order dated 25.4.2006 is said to have been passed. However, the State Commission informed that the file of CC No.288 of 1999 is not traceable.

The Commission took suo moto cognizence of the said complaint of the petitioner dated 27.10.2010. We have perused the entire record of CC No.282/1999. After going through the record it is found that the matter was listed before the State Commission on the following dates: 13.11.1999, 6.3.2000, 27.7.2000, 8.3.2001, 13.9.2001, 31.1.2002, 20.12.2002, 9.4.2002, 26.7.2002, 11.11.2002, 31.12.2002, 24.1.2003, 18.7.2003, 5.11.2004, 7.3.2005, 17.5.2005, 26.8.2005, 13.10.2005, 11.5.2006, 20.7.2006, 7.9.2006, 10,10.2006 and 23.11.2006.

THE alleged judgement dated 25.4.2006 which has been put on the net in complaint Case No.288 of 1999, which is found on the record of CC No.282 of 1999 and is at pgs 418-437, is not signed by the President of the Commission and the Member. It is pertinent to mention that the reply to the interrogatories had been filed on 13.10.2005 and the matter was listed for final disposal on 11.5.2006. THE matter was not fixed at all on 25.4.2006. Moreover, it is beyond our comprehension as to how the said oral judgement dated 25.4.2006 came into existence when even arguments had not been heard in the matter. THE matter was listed for the first time for arguments on 11.5.2006 and from then onwards the matter was adjourned from time to time till 23.11.2006 when the complaint was withdrawn. THE complainant had filed list of dates and events dated 21.7.2006 as also written arguments dated 21.7.2006 on behalf of the complainant and the same are on record of CC No. 282 of 1999 at pgs. 336-341. It may also be mentioned here that the facts disclosed in judgement dated 25.4.1996 do pertain to Complaint Case No.282 of 1999. How CC No.288 of 1999 was recorded in order dated 25.4.2006 is not known. THE record does not show that the said judgement dated 25.4.2006, which is stated to be an oral judgement was pronounced either on 25.4.2006 or any time thereafter. THE said unsigned judgement dated 25.4.2006 is, therefore, a nullity and non-est for all purposes. How this judgement was put on the Google. Com or on the official website of the State Commission is not known. THE entire episode relating to the said judgement dated 25.4.2006 and putting the same on the network requires to be enquired into so that such things do not re-occur in future. In view of the above, we hold that unsigned judgement dated 25.4.2006, which is found on record of CC No. 282 of 1999, though shown under CC No.288 of 1999 is a nullity and non-est for all purposes and we direct that the same should be taken off from the Google. Com as also from official website of the State Commission. We deem it necessary that an inquiry shall be conducted into the whole episode and we request the President of the State Commission to conduct an inquiry so that such things do not re-occur and the persons responsible for putting the said unsigned judgement dated 25.4.2006 on website are brought to the book. We further request the President of the State Commission to complete the inquiry within three months and forward the inquiry report to this Commission for further appropriate action.

THE order pronounced today shall be put on the official website of this Commission at the earliest.