AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellants - opposite parties no. 1 to 4 (the hospital and the doctors). None is present for the respondent. Perused the material on record.
This is a case of alleged medical negligence, which resulted in post seizure paralysis of both limbs of the patient.
The complaint has been filed by the patient (complainant).
The present first appeal has been filed against the interim Orders dated 04.08.2017, 30.08.2017 and 01.11.2017 of the State Commission.
The State Commission vide its said Orders dated 04.08.2017, 30.08.2017 and 01.11.2017 has closed the right of the opposite parties no. 1 to 4 to file their written version. The Orders read as below:
Docket order dated 04-08-2017 BNRN.(P) & PVR(M)
Sri Y. Mallikarjuna Rao, father of Complainant present. He filed memo along with postal tracking list with an endorsement "Item delivered". No representation for OP's 1 to 3. It is evident from the record that the service on OP's 1 to 3 was effected on 30-08-2017. Since then the statutory period for filing written version of OP's 1 to 3 has already been expired. Hence, the right to file the same is forfeited.
For filing written version of OP 4, post on 30-08-2017.
Docket order dated 30-08-2017 BNRN.(P) & PVR(M)
Sri Mallikarjuna Rao, father of Complainant present. Counsel for OP's 1 to 3 present. He also offers vakalat for OP 4. However contended the date of service of notice on OP 4, i.e., 13-07-2017, the statutory period for filing written version of OP 4 already expired. Hence his right to file written version is forfeited. Post on 18-09-2017, for filing affidavit evidence of complainant.
Docket order dated 01-11-2017 BNRN.(P) & PVR(M)
Councel for the petitioners present. No representation for respondents. Heard Counsel for the Petitioners. In the Circumstances, Petition is dismissed as not maintainable since this Commission has no Power to review our own orders.
Without in any manner attempting to examine or adjudicate on the case on merit, we observe that the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 are the treating doctors in the complaint (refer paras 2, 3 and 4 of the complaint) and that specific allegations have inter alia been made against them in the complaint (refer para 4 (e), 5 and 6 of the complaint). And the opposite party no. 1 is the concerned hospital.
We note that the opposite parties no. 1 to 4 did not file their respective written versions within the prescribed statutory period. The State Commission, therefore, (rightly) closed their right to file their written versions. And the State Commission has no power to review its own Order/s.
We are but of the opinion that this being a complaint of alleged medical negligence, before the forum of original jurisdiction (the State Commission), it should, as far as (lawfully) feasible, be comprehensively and holistically examined on merit, with the affording of the due opportunity to all the parties involved to adduce their evidence / defence, and should also be speedily disposed of.
On the one hand we note that if the opposite party no. 1, the hospital, and the opposite parties no. 2 to 4, the treating doctors, are not allowed to file their written version, it would compromise their defence. On the other hand we also note that the opposite parties no. 1 to 4 did not file their written version within the prescribed statutory period, thereby impeding the comprehensive and holistic examination of the case on merit and its speedy disposal.
In the interest of justice, it is just and appropriate to provide one opportunity to the opposite parties no. 1 to 4 to file their respective written version, subject to just and reasonable cost.
In the facts and specificities of the case, we deem a cost of Rs. 1.30 lakh (Rs. 1.00 lakh by the opposite party no. 1 - hospital and Rs. 10,000/- each by the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 - treating doctors) to be just and reasonable.
The opposite parties no. 1 to 4 are allowed to file their written version within four weeks, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1.30 lakh (Rs. 1.00 lakh by the opposite party no. 1- hospital and Rs. 10,000/- each by the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 - treating doctors) to the complainant - patient directly in her name by way of demand draft.
All parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 21.02.2019.
So disposed.
Let a copy each of this Order be sent to the State Commission and to all parties (including the respondent - complainant) within ten days by the Registry.