AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Member
The instant Revision Petition raises the question ‘Whether the petitioner can file a Revision Petition before this Commission against the Order of District Forum/ Commission and whether such Revision Petition is maintainable’.
We note the instant Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant being aggrieved by the Final Order of the District Forum dated 16.01.2021, with the following prayer:-
I. To Set aside the Order of IVth Addl. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission dated 16.01.2021 in CC/2251/2011 and restore the earlier Order dated 02.09.2014 by IVth Addl. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
II. To set aside the Order of Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission dated 10.01.2020 passed in undecided Appeal 1469/2014 even after 5 years 2 months, without merit.
III. Any other relief consider deem fit with cost in the interest of justice.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
He submitted that it was the case of alleged medical negligence and the initial Consumer Complaint No.2251 of 2011 filed before IVth Additional District Commission, Banglore. The complaint was partly allowed and compensation of Rs. 10 lac was awarded.
Being aggrieved, the Opposite Parties filed the First Appeal No.1469 of 2014 before the State Commission on 13.11.2014. The State Commission decided the matter on 10.01.2020 i.e. after about five years and set aside the order of the District Forum to dispose-off the same within 3 months and remanded the matter back to the District Forum with following observations:-
“As it is the case of medical negligence, further details are also not provided by the Complainant. For one or the other reason producing the details at a belated stage of 5 years appears to be very strange, even then details are produced. Further, the expert evidence is also not there in this regard. The District Forum has not applied its mind and in the usual course passed an Order.”
After remand, the District Forum vide its order dated 16.01.2021 dismissed the complaint.
Thus, being aggrieved, the Petitioner/ Complainant Ms. Sarla filed the instant Revision Petition.
We have specifically asked the learned Counsel for the Complainant that without filing an Appeal against the order of the District Forum, under which provision you filed this Revision Petition.
The learned Counsel vehemently submitted that the incident of alleged negligence took place in 2011. The order of the District Forum in the first complaint was in his favour, but the State Commission decided the Appeal after five years and remanded the matter for re-hearing. Thereafter, the District Forum dismissed the complaint without appreciating the facts. He further submitted that he had an apprehension that he will not get the justice at District or State Commission in Karnataka. He further requested in the interest of justice the matter may be transferred to appropriate Forum in the other State.
We would like to go through the provisions under Section 21 (b) of the Act, 1986 and similarly the Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act, 2019, the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. The Section 58 (1) (b) is reproduced as below:-
Section 58 (1) (b)- to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
Therefore, based on the discussion about the Petitioner cannot approach this Commission against the order of the District Forum in the Revisional Jurisdiction. The proper remedy for the petitioner was to file First Appeal before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum.
It is pertinent to note that there was delay of 316 days in filing the instant Revision Petition. In our view this Revision Petition has been filed with huge delay and therefore, this Petition is not maintainable under the Act, 2019. The Petitioner has not stated convincing reasons to condone such huge delay.
Considering the facts of the case, this matter involves question of alleged medical negligence against the treating doctors. At this stage, without touching the merits of the instant case, we grant liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy as per law.
The Revision Petition is devoid of merit same is dismissed.