M/s Shalby Hospital vs Shri Krishna Kishor Goswami

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member

R.A. No. 139 of 2024 in RP No. 261 of 2024

Revision Petition No. 261 of 2024 was decided by this Commission vide Order dated 14.03.2024. The present review application seeks the review of the said Order.

The aforesaid Order dated 14.03.2024 may be quoted herein below:

This revision petition has been filed under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 in challenging the impugned Order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 209 of 2023 and the Order passed by the District Commission in Complaint No. 808 of 2018.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner / opposite party no. 2. Perused the material on record including inter alia the Order passed by the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the State Commission and the memo of petition.

To facilitate better appreciation of the matter, the impugned Order dated 03.11.2023 may be quoted herein below:

None for the appellant even when the case was taken up in second round.

Shri Yogendra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2.

None for the respondent no.3.

There is no request or any application on behalf of appellant to adjourn the matter.

This appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution in view of Rule 11(6) (a) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Rules, 2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain the circumstances under which the impugned Order dated 03.11.2023 was passed and the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that the merits of the case remained un-adjudicated and the petitioner has a good case on merits and if the opportunity of hearing would not be granted to pursue its case on merits before the State Commission, then the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and it shall be left remediless.

Ordinarily this Bench could have issued notice to the respondent(s) and would have proceeded with the matter thereafter. But such a course might have taken a long time as it was not likely that the matter could have been taken up on an early date in the wake of heavy pendency of cases. Also, in such event the proceedings of the complaint would have to be stayed and the matter would have dragged for an indefinite period of time. Such a course would have eventually proved detrimental to the cause of the consumer justice. As the matter in hand does not involve any complicated questions of law or facts and boarders principally on first principles of natural justice, it would not serve much purpose to procrastinate the hearing only for waiting for the service on the respondent(s), therefore, in the conspicuous facts and circumstance, the Bench finds it expedient to decide the matter on the basis of record.

Looking into overall circumstances in the case without making any observation about the merits of the case, lest, the same may cause any prejudice to either side and colour the vision of the State Commission, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner / opposite party no.2 and in view of the totality of the specificities and circumstances of the case, the Bench feels it expedient to give a further opportunity to the the petitioner / opposite party no.2 to appear and pursue its case on merits before the State Commission. The impugned Order dated 03.11.2023 is hence set aside and the present revision petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the State Commission subject to the cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner / opposite party no.2 to the respondent no.1 / complainant no. 1 through the State Commission on or before the date fixed, without fail.

The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 09.05.2024.

If the cost is not paid as directed above within the above stipulated period of time by the petitioner, the impugned Order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the State Commission shall stand as it stood.

The petitioner / opposite party is directed to peruse its appeal before the State Commission in right earnest. It may be observed that in case on the date fixed for hearing or on any future date, the petitioner / opposite party fails to appear before the State Commission personally or through its counsel or authorized representative, the State Commission may proceed with the matter as it may deem fit in its wisdom in accordance with law.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties of the petition and to the fora below within three days from today. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission within three days from today.

The record, including the Order under review dated 14.03.2024 as well as the review application no. 139 of 2024 have been perused.

The law regarding the scope and ambit of ‘review’ (as provided under The Consumer Protection Act 1986 or 2019) is too well settled to be elaborated upon. The canvas and the confines of its scope are not too wide. Every difference of opinion regarding an issue does not emanate out of ‘error apparent on the face of record’ nor every subjective difference in deducing inferences does.

The Order dated 14.03.2024 is self-contained and self-speaking. No such error apparent on the face of the record is visible which may deserve correction or amendment in the Order or which may persuade this Bench to take a different view of this matter.

The application is dismissed. The Order dated 14.03.2024 stands as it stood.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in review application and to the learned counsel for the applicants. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.