AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Commission. The grievance of the appellant is that the State Commission vide order dated 28.11.2014 directed the opposite parties to produce certain documents. The order reads as under :
Dated :28.11.2014
ORDER
This misc. case has been filed u/s 13(4)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule 10 (1) (a) of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 for production of original medical record and reports dated 25.8.1988 and 12.3.2004 of Dr. P. VijayaKumaran under the custody and possession of opposite party nos.1 and 2.
On hearing the counsel for the parties, it is felt that the production of documents sought for are required for this Commission to pass a just decision on the Consumer Complaint. So, the opposite parties are directed to produce the aforesaid document before this Commission by the next date.
Misc. Case No.382 of 2011
This misc. case has been filed by the petitioner U/s 13 (4) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Rule 10(2) (a) of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 for seizure of original medical record and reports dated 25.8.1988 and 12.3.2004 of Dr.P.Vijaya Kumaran under the custody and possession of opposite party nos.1 and 2.
In misc. case no.381 of 2011 order has been passed directing the opposite parties to produce the aforesaid documents. The photocopy of those documents have been filed by the petitioner/complainant., which are on record. So, there is no apprehension of destruction, mutilation, alternation, falsification of documents. As such, the seizure of those documents are not required. Accordingly, the petition is rejected and the misc. case is dismissed.
Consumer Complaint No.29 of 2011
Let this matter be listed on 29.5.2015 for hearing.
The opposite party did not comply with the order and, therefore, an appeal was filed by the complainant before this Commission being First Appeal No.960 of 2016 and this Commission vide order dated 05.09.2017 passed the following order :
Dated : 05 Sep 2017
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The learned counsel has drawn attention to the order dated 28.11.2014, passed by the State Commission in Miscellaneous Case No. 381/2011 as per which, the opposite parties (OPs) have been directed to produce the documents consisting of the original medical record and reports etc. On 30.06.2016, a direction was again given to the OPs to produce the documents and the matter was listed for hearing on 23.11.2016. The learned counsel stated that despite these directions, the OPs had failed to produce the documents before the State Commission. The learned counsel stated that a similar direction should be given to the OPs from this Commission as well, directing them to produce the said documents.
It is evident from above that the appellant before us is not aggrieved from any order passed by the State Commission, rather they simply want reinforcement of the order passed by the State Commission by giving directions to the respondents. Evidently the appeal in its present form is not maintainable. In case, the OPs failed to comply with the order of the State Commission, the appellant is free to file an execution application for implementing of the order as per law.
The present appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.
Accordingly the complainant filed an execution before the State Commission. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant stating that the execution application is not being decided expeditiously by the State Commission.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This appeal has been filed under Section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the present matter, no order has been passed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the State Commission so far. Thus the present appeal which has been filed under Section 27 A is not maintainable and therefore is dismissed. The main grievance of the appellant is that the execution filed before the State Commission be decided expeditiously. The State Commission is requested to dispose of the execution as per the law within a reasonable time.
The parties may appear before the State Commission on the already fixed there. Registry may pay the fees of the learned Amicus Curiae as per procedure.