Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/19/131

MAHESHWARI NURSING HOME - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEPAK YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

SH.MUKESH GUPTA

19 Sep 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

RP No.131 / 2019.

 

Maheshwari Nursing Home & Ors.                                   …. PETITIONERS.

 

 

                        Versus

 

Deepak Yadav & Ors.                                                          …. RESPONDENTS.

 

 

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

 

 

Date of                                          O R D E R                                                   

Order                                                                                                                 

 

19.9.2019                  Shri Sandeep Guru, learned counsel for the petitioners.

                        2.         Heard on the question of admission.

                        3.         Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.8.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior in CC No.262/2018 whereby the application filed by the petitioners – opposite parties for calling the doctors who had issued the certificates in question for giving oral evidence has been rejected, the petitioners have filed this revision.

 

                        4.         Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the impugned order we find that the petitioners wanted to demonstrate that in the report submitted by the complainants - respondents

- 2 -

on 2.7.2018 in Police Station, Padaw on the basis of a certificate given by Dr. Sarthak Juglan the cause of death of deceased Renu was different than the cause mentioned in the post mortem report signed by three doctors in which also Dr. Sarthak Juglan was signatory with other two doctors viz. Dr. Renu Jain and Dr. V. S. Tomar.  In the circumstances oral evidence of Dr. Sarthak Juglan is necessary.

5.         The Forum declined the prayer to call Dr. Sarthak Juglan for giving oral evidence on the ground that the correctness of the said reports and which report out of the two is correct and reliable will be considered after the evidence is recorded.  It held that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act provides for summary proceedings which is to be adopted by the Forum and the evidence in the form of affidavits is acceptable.

                        6.         In view of the reasons aforesaid and keeping in view of the fact that the parties can lead evidence by way of affidavits to substantiate their respective claims, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.  The Forum has correctly exercised its jurisdiction calling for no interference by the Commission in revisional jurisdiction. 

7.         However, keeping the question open and all contentions in this regard of both the sides left open to be raised at the appropriate stage, we dismiss this revision petition.     

                          (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)         (S.S. Bansal)          (P.K. Parashar)       

           ^{PRESIDENT                                          MEMBER                    MEMBER}   

 

 

Phadke