Facts of the present case are that complainant No.1, Akash kumar Shrivastav (Respondent No.1 herein – Minor) filed a complaint through his father (Respondent No.2 herein) before the District Forum.  It was alleged in the complaint that Respondent No.1 was operated upon by Dr.Ashish Jaiswal in Nav Jyoti Eye Hospital (petitioner herein) on 23.7.1993 for cataract in the right eye but due to negligence of the doctor, the operation was not successful.  Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 was taken to Dr.U.S. Srivastava at Mohal Lal Memorial Gandhi Hospital, Aligarh and thereafter to Dr. T.S. Surenderan at Madras.  The eye could not be corrected and, in the result, Respondent No.1 lost his right eye.  Aggrieved by this, complaint was filed before the District Forum.

          District Forum, by passing an ex parte order, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 12%.  Costs of Rs.500/- was also awarded.  Petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, which was allowed by the District Forum.

Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission alleging that the State Commission did not have the jurisdiction to recall its order.

Petitioner had also filed an appeal bearing No.3403/1999 before the State Commission against the original order of the District Forum.  State Commission, instead of clubbing both the appeals together, took up Appeal No.169/1997 filed by the respondents and allowed the same vide its order dated 28.3.2006.  Before the State Commission, the petitioner had not been served and was proceeded ex parte. 

Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.  It has been alleged that the State Commission had fixed 7.9.2005 for final hearing of the appeal.  Petitioner was not sent the Notice and instead Mr.M.H. Khan, counsel for the respondent was asked to inform the counsel for the petitioner.  Mr.Khan had reported to the State Commission that he had personally informed Mr.Ashok Kr. Dubey and sent a written communication about the date of hearing.  State Commission, after noting down the statement of Mr.Khan, passed the following zimni order :

“Sh. M.H. Khan present on behalf of the appellant.  None present for the respondents.  Shri M.H. Khan stated that he had personally informed Sh.Ashok Kumar Dubey and also sent him written communication.  However, they be informed by Speed post.

          Matter be listed for next month.”

          It would be seen that in spite of the statement made by Mr.M.H. Khan, the State Commission directed the office to serve the petitioner through speed post for the next month.

          The appeal was taken up for final disposal on 28.3.2006 though the office had reported that notice could not be issued due to lack of time.  A perusal of the zimni order shows that the petitioner had never been served in the appeal filed by the respondent.

          Order passed by the State Commission is, prima facie, in violation of principles of the natural justice as the State Commission had decided the appeal without service on the respondent and affording hearing to him.  The same deserves to be set aside.

For the reasons stated above, the Revision Petition is allowed.  Order of the State Commission is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission.  Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 20.4.2010.

According to the counsel for the petitioner, appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending before the State Commission.  We direct the State Commission to dispose of Appeal No.169/1997 filed by the respondent and Appeal No.3403/1999 filed by the petitioner together.

Since this is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal within 6 months from the date of first appearance.