Chandigarh

StateCommission

RA/16/2024

VIKAS DUDREJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

FORTIS HEALTHCARE - Opp.Party(s)

JATIN BANSAL

22 Oct 2024

ORDER

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.T., Chandigarh.

 

Review Application No.16 of 2024

In A/156/2024

 

Sh. Vikas Dudreja

Vs

Fortis Healthcare Ltd. & Ors.

 

BEFORE:

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: 

 

Sh. Jatin Bansal, Advocate, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

 

Dated:  22/10/2024

ORDER

 

PER  RAJESH  K . ARYA,  MEMBER

                   This review application has been filed by the appellant under the provisions of Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 (in short ‘Act’ for review of order dated 30.08.2024 passed by this Commission vide which, appeal bearing No.156 of 2024 filed by the applicant/appellant has been dismissed.

2]                Counsel for the applicant/appellant has argued that the real function of an expert is to put before the Court all the materials, together with reasons, which induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the Court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials. He further argued that the District Commission below wrongly dismissed the application for medical opinion deeming it as “collection of evidence” and rather it does not have any technical member from medical background, in the absence of which, it becomes a fit case warranting expert opinion of specialized person/panel of doctors. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases ‘Martin F. D’ Souza vs. Ishfaq’, 2009 AIR SCW 180 and ‘S. K. Jhunjhuwala v. Dhanwanti Kau & Anr.’ (2019) 2 SCC 282. He further cited ‘Keshav Kumar Sharma vs. Suyash Hospital’, Revision Petition No.18 of 2022 decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh on 27.12.2022; ‘Smt. Kakoli Chattoraj Vs. Dr. Anjan Guha’, Interolocutory Application No.IA/703/2018 decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal on 18.07.2018; ‘V. Ramachandran Versus Upasana Hospital’, Complaint Case No.2 of 2010 decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram on 07.06.2024; ‘Amrit Pal Kaur Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & 2 Ors.’, Revision Petition No.10 of 2023 decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab on 21.04.2023 and ‘Master Harjot Singh minor son of Sh.Jagmohan Singh Vs. Dr. Patra’s Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd.’, First Appeal No.185 of 2011 decided by this Commission i.e. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, , U.T., Chandigarh on 22.08.2012.

3]                However, before dealing with the grounds for review, it may be stated here that there is a delay of 14 days in filing this review application, for condonation whereof, Miscellaneous Application bearing No.914 of 2024 has been moved. After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by an affidavit and in view of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448 and Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the applicant-appellant has shown rational reason for the delay, which has been caused due to bonafide reasons. Therefore, for the reasons given in the application which is supported by an affidavit and finding sufficient cause, the delay in filing this review application is condoned. MA/914/2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

4]                Now coming to this review application, after hearing the Counsel for the applicant/appellant at length and going through the order under review and the record, we are of the considered opinion, that this review application is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here that seeking a review under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is not an entitlement or a matter of right for the aggrieved party. The scope of such a review is narrowly defined and highly restricted. It is confined to situations where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, meaning the error must be obvious and not require a detailed examination of the facts or evidence. The review process is not intended for re-evaluating the case or reconsidering the evidence already presented. Instead, it is meant to address instances where a glaring mistake or oversight has occurred that is evident without delving deeply into the case's merits. Therefore, the scope of review is extremely limited and grounds for review are to be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they fall within the narrow parameters set by the law. This limitation emphasizes the finality of judgments and seeks to prevent the review process from being misused as a tool for endless litigation or delay tactics. However, in the instant application, the review of our order, on the ground raised for such, is not permissible under the purview of Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which provides a very limited scope for review, strictly confined to identifying and correcting errors that are apparent on the face of the record. The purpose of this provision is to address, clear and self-evident mistakes, not to provide a platform for re-litigating issues that have already been thoroughly examined and decided upon. By attempting to delve back into the prayer for sending the matter for expert opinion, which had already been rejected by the Ld. District Commission below and that order upheld by this Commission vide order under review, the applicant/appellant is essentially seeking to reopen the case on merit, which goes beyond the narrow and specific grounds for review contemplated under Section 50 ibid. This approach undermines the finality and certainty of legal decisions, which Section 50 is designed to uphold by restricting reviews to obvious and manifest errors only. We would also like to state that the scope of review under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, being strictly limited, has been consistently upheld by judicial authorities. In Lilly Thomas v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and not to substitute views. The relevant portion of the said decision is usefully extracted here-under:-

"55. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of R.I. DESAI R.A. 15/21 following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment.

 

5]                The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others reported in 2013 (4) CTC 882 has held that the review proceedings are not by way of an Appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. The relevant portion of the said decision is usefully extracted hereunder:

"15. Review proceedings are not by way of an Appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. In Review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the Judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the Review Jurisdiction."

 

6]                From the above observation of Hon'ble Apex Courts, it is crystal clear that the power of review cannot be equated with the power of appeal as the scope of review is very limited. Besides this, the scope of review under the provisions of Section 50 of the Act is highly limited and only to the extent of “an error apparent on the face of record”.

7]                We do not find any error apparent on record. As such, the judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the applicant-appellant are of not much help to him. Consequently, this review application is dismissed being devoid of any substance.

8]                Any other pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed of accordingly.

9]                Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

10]              File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

 22.10.2024

         

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad