SHUSHRUSHA CITIZENS CO-OP. HOSPITAL vs MURLIDHAR EKNATH MASANE

IT is the opposite party-hospital and the doctor who are before us in this revision against the order of the State Commission passed in execution proceedings against the petitioners. IT is not necessary to set out the facts in any detail except to note that on a complaint filed by the respondent alleging deficiency in service on account of medical negligence State Commission by its order dated 29.10.1994 held the petitioners to be guilty of professional negligence. Complaint of the respondent was allowed and the first petitioner-hospital was directed to pay Rs. 3.00 lakhs as compensation and second petitioner doctor was ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Both the petitioners were directed to pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- each. IT was also ordered that the aforesaid amounts shall be paid to the complainant with interest @ 18% per annum till realisation.

BOTH the petitioners came in appeal before this Commission and by interim order dated 13.2.1995 stay was granted of the impugned order of the State Commission on the condition that the petitioners shall deposit the amount in any nationalised bank by way of fixed deposit taken in the name of complainant and the said fixed deposit receipt shall be deposited with the Registry of the State Commission, Mumbai within a period of one month from the date of the order. It is stated that in terms of that order FDR was taken and placed with the State Commission for safe custody and that FDR was being renewed from time to time. The petitioner had filed appeals. BOTH the appeals were dismissed by this Commission by order dated 17.4.2002 with costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the appeals. The order of the State Commission was affirmed. In the execution petition filed by the complainant State Commission directed that whole of the amount as warded be paid with interest @ 18% per annum till realisation. It is against the impugned order that the petitioners have now come before us in revision. It is the submission of Mr. Gopal Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners that once having asked to take the FDR which was kept with the State Commission and whatever the interest had accrued thereon only was payable to the complainant and not @ 18% per annum. We are unable to accept this contention. Perhaps Mr. Jain is under certain misconception where under the Civil Procedure Code amount deposited in terms of decree interest ceases on that amount. This is not the situation here. Petitioners sought stay of the impugned order and on a condition of their taking FDR stay was granted. But that amount was not deposited in the State Commission in that sense and the complainant had no right to withdraw that amount. The order of the National Commission safeguarded the amount if ultimately appeal was to be allowed. There is no parallel between what happened here and the deposit made in the Civil Court on its own by the judgment debtor where decree holder is free to withdraw the amount. Order of the State Commission passed on the complaint filed by the complainant and affirmed by this Commission clearly states that interest is payable @ 18% per annum. There cannot be any difference of opinion. Approach of the State Commission is correct. This petition has no merit and it is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.