MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.       The OP No.1 (Dr.Baljeet Kaur) has filed a revision petition under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 15.12.2010 passed in M.A. No. 200/10 in Complaint no. 998 of 2009 by the learned District Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum). It has been submitted that the learned District Forum has erred in allowing the application filed by the complainant for the restoration of the complaint as it was dismissed in default for non-appearance on 27.9.2010. It was submitted that earlier also on 12.11.2009 this complaint was dismissed in default due to the non appearance of the complainant, however the same was restored to its original number on 8.12.2009 on the filing of the application for restoration of the complaint by the complainant.

2.       It was next submitted that as per the medical report obtained by the learned District Forum the medical experts have given their opinion that there is no negligence on the part of the OPs (Doctors). The learned District Forum instead of dismissing the complaint outrightly being without any merit has issued a notice to the OPs, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that as the complainant was well aware of the fact that as per the report of the experts there is no negligence on the part of OPs and for this reason, he intentionally did not appear in the court and after a gap of long time, he has filed an application for restoration of complaint on 27.9.2010 just to harass the OPs and the learned District Forum has restored the complaint second time to its original number. Hence, the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the learned District Forum for the restoration of the complaint is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice.

3.       We have gone through the revision petition filed by the OPs/revisionist and also heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. 

4.       The restoration of the complaint in the second instance was allowed by the learned District Forum on the averment made by the complainant that the complainant was not informed by his counsel of the date of hearing and an affidavit to this effect was also filed by the complainant.  In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of restoration is in consonance with settled law that the complainant should not suffer for the fault of his counsel. Therefore, keeping this fact into consideration and keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the application for restoration. Therefore, we dismiss the application for revision against the order of the learned District Forum. However, we direct the complainant to place on record the evidence, if any, in his possession on which he wants to rely for his case on 10.2.2011 and also furnish a copy of the same to the OPs. The OPs are also directed to file reply by 25.2.2011. The learned District Forum is also directed to decide the complaint expeditiously on merits preferably within two months from the receipt of the present order.  

5.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                        

24^th January, 2011.