AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Singh, J
Learned counsel for the revision petitioners (the hospital and the doctors) was heard. The material on record was perused.
On 25.03.2019, after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners (the hospital and the doctors), and after perusing the material on record, we passed the following Order:
Dated: 25.03.2019
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners.
Perused the material on record.
The revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the revision petitioners to the respondent - complainant within four weeks of the pronouncement of the reasoned judgment.
Reasoned judgment to follow.
We are giving our reasons hereinafter.
The dispute relates to amendment by the complainant in his complaint of alleged medical negligence filed by him before the District Forum.
Briefly, the complainant filed a complaint (c.c. no. 18 / 2018) in the District Forum on 19.03.2018 alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties (the hospital and the doctors), which resulted in the death of his pregnant wife and child.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 07.09.2018 allowed his application for amendment in the complaint:
- - - The complainant has filed this complaint against the Respondent claiming an amount of damages to the tune of Rs. 19.00 lakhs alongwith interest.
The proposed amendment is of formal nature which will not change the nature of the complaint. The complainant has filed the amendment application with delay, therefore, the abovementioned amendment filed by the complainant is allowed subject to a cost of Rs.200/-.
The complainant is directed to amend the complaint accordingly.
(as per the translated copy furnished by the revision petitioner)
Against the said Order dated 07.09.2018 of the District Forum, the opposite parties (the hospital and the doctors) went in revision before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its Order dated 16.10.2018 dismissed the revision:
Dated: 16.10.2018
DECISION
This revision petition has been filed against the Order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the District Forum.
The Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist has argued that vide the impugned order, the amendment sought in the complaint has been sought in order to defeat the preliminary objection raised by the revisionist.
In relation to the abovesaid, the case law i.e. the Writ Petition No. 113/1992 filed by the N.C.D.R.C., New Delhi tilted as Badora Municipal Corporation Vs. Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat Limited has been relied upon.
From the perusal of the abovementioned order, it is revealed that vide the order in question, the complainant had claimed in the complaint the amount of Rs. 19.00 lakhs initially alongwith an interest @ 18%. Through the proposed amendment, it has been prayed that the claim amount of Rs. 19.00 lakhs be changed to Rs. 15.00 lakhs and for which the amendment application was filed. While accepting this prayer, the District Forum has directed the complainant to make the amendment accordingly.
In our opinion, the order passed by the District Forum is not erroneous as per law. There is no force in the revision petition and the same deserves not to be allowed.
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed.
(as per the translated copy furnished by the revision petitioner)
This instant revision petition has been filed before this Commission by the opposite parties (the hospital and the doctors) against the said Order dated 16.10.2018 of the State Commission.
We find the impugned Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission concurred with the District Forum. We note in particular the extracts of the respective observations made by the two fora, quoted, verbatim, in paras 5 and 6 above. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.
We specifically note that, one, this is a complaint of alleged medical negligence, resulting in the death of the pregnant wife and child of the complainant, two, it is under adjudication before the forum of original jurisdiction (District Forum), three, the complainant first claimed an amount Rs.19 lakh (plus interest) as compensation and then filed an application for amending the said amount to Rs.15 lakh (plus interest), four, the amended amount was lower than the original amount, five, the extant compensation claimed, Rs.15 lakh (plus interest), undisputedly falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a District Forum, six, the District Forum allowed the amendment in the normal wont as per the law, and, seven, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum.
The opposite parties (the hospital and the doctors) have now preferred revision before this Commission too. The whole exercise undertaken by the opposite parties (the hospital and the doctors) has needlessly and unwarrantedly delayed the adjudication of the complaint (of alleged medical negligence resulting in death) in the forum of original jurisdiction. The Act 1986 is meant for "better protection of the interests of consumers", in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons says of "speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes". In this case, an ordinary consumer (complainant) is professing his case against the hospital and the doctors. Dilatory and impedimentary tactics on the part of the opposite parties are clearly visible. Wasting the time and resources of this Commission is also clearly evident. The revision petition is patently misconceived and devoid of merit.
The revision petition is dismissed with stern advice of caution through imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the revision petitioners (the hospital and the doctors) to the respondent - complainant within four weeks of the date of pronouncement of this Order.
Needless to add that the District Forum shall proceed further with the adjudication of the complaint (as amended) on merit as per the law.
Let a copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the respondent - complainant by the Registry within ten days of pronouncement of this Order.