PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

Respondents No.1, 3 & 4 are already ex-parte. No one appears on behalf of respondent No.2 despite of service of notice through registered A.D. post, even on the second call. Respondent No.2 is also proceeded ex-parte.

2.       The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, “the State Commission) dated 26.11.2012 has preferred this revision petition. Impugned order is reproduced as under:

“Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for the complainant

Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties No.1 & 2

None for the opposite party No.3

Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party No.4

On the last date of hearing, after the payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- last opportunity was granted to the complainant to conclude her evidence. Thereafter, on the request of counsel for the complainant Dr. Arun K. Narula was summoned and it was made clear to the complainant that it would be responsibility of the complainant to produce the Dr. Arun K. Narula on the date fixed. However, Dr. Arun K. Narula has not appeared. In this view of the matter, we do not find any justification to grant further opportunity to the complainant, despite the specific observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cate titled “M/s Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd. and Others, Civil Appeal No.532 of 2011, decided on 30.8.2011, that courts should not allow more than three opportunities to conclude the evidence. The Courts, particularly trial Courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress must take place in the suit.

In this view of the matter, evidence of the complainant is hereby closed. Now to come up on 6.12.2012 for evidence of the opposite parties.”

3.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the State Commission has committed a grave error in closing the evidence of the petitioner/complainant because of non-appearance of Dr. Arun K. Narula, a summoned witness. Learned counsel contended that if Dr. Arun K. Narula had failed to respond to the summons of the Commission, the Commission in exercise of its power ought to have taken coercive measures to procure the present of Dr. Arun K. Narula instead of closing the right of the complainant to lead evidence.

4.       We agree with the above contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner had filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties alleging medical negligence. In a case of medical negligence testimony of Doctor is very material. If Dr. Arun K. Narula had failed to obey the summons of the Commission, the Commission in exercise of its powers under Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should have used coercive measure to procure the presence of Dr. Arun K. Narula, a material witness.

5.       Thus, in our view, the closing of evidence of the petitioner by State Commission amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the State Commission is directed to fix a date for recording the evidence of the petitioner and dispose of the matter after giving due hearing to the parties.

5.       Complainant to appear before the State Commission on 21.1.2015.