Date of Filing : 22.03.2021 

Date of Disposal : 22.04.2021

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU 

DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF APRIL-2021

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                                      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI  : MEMBER

 

 

Rivision Petition NO.18/2021

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

Dr.Leela.V W/o late V.R.Naidu, aged about 75 years, R/at No.1954, 9th Cross, 4th Main, HAL IV stage, New Thippasandra, Bengaluru-75.

 

Dr.Ninan Thomas Aged about 60 years, R/at No.404, Vas Ferndale, 1st Main, Kodihalli, HAL 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-08

 

Dr.Santhosh, Nephrology, Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-38

 

The Medical Superintendent Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-38.

 

By Advocates 

M/s.Dua Associates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

….Appellant/s

 

 

V/s

 

 

Sri.Gopal Shetty, Aged about 70 years, R/at Sri Nilayam, No.49, 2F-2, 4th Floor, Ashoka Avenue D Cross, Murugeshpalya, Bengaluru-17.

 

 

 

…..Respondent/s

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER 

 

1. This Revision petition is filed against the order passed by 3rd Addl., District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru dtd.25.02.2021 directing the Revision Petitioner/Opposite parties to appear before the District Commission for cross examination. 

2. We shall refer to the parties as per the ranking before the District Commission.

3. The brief facts of the petition are that, the Respondent/Complainant have filed medical negligence/deficiency of service complaint against Opposite parties and prayed for compensation of Rs.17,24,817/- along with interest at 18% p.a. Now the case is pending after filing the affidavit on the side of Opposite parties. The Complainant sought for cross examination of the Opposite parties as their involvement of negligence in treatment given by them. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by District Commission and direct the District Commission to provide interrogatories in the place of cross examination of Opposite parties.

4. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner vehemently argued that Revision Petitioner’s hospital is a charitable hospital which is providing medical service by highly competent qualified professionals and they have given the treatment with all due care and necessary procedures to the Complainant. Since the doctors are very much engaged in their daily routine of treatment, they are unable to appear before District Commission for cross examination and requested to provide interrogatories by the Complainant. So that, the Opposite parties can answer elaborately. The learned counsel relied upon the decision laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in “Con Décor Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs. Smt.Smritikana Ghose and Anr 2002 CTJ 692 (CP), (NCDRC) and submits that cross examination is not a rule but it is only an exception where there is a question of reputation of person like medical practitioner in cases of alleged medical negligence. Hence prays to set aside the order of District Commission. 

5. Of course, we agreed the arguments of the learned counsel for Revision Petitioner and the Hon’ble National Commission has categorically stated that cross examination is not a rule but it is only an exception. Even though, the present case is against medical negligence on the part of Opposite parties, the Complainant can provide interrogatories in detail to extract the elaborate answers from Opposite parties. If the Commission feels the answers are not sufficient to determine the dispute, then only they can call for cross examination. We are of the opinion that, by providing the Complainant to file interrogatories, the Commission can save court time and at the same time, Opposite parties can render their service which are essential in the hospital. As such order passed by District Commission is set aside and the District Commission is directed to receive interrogatories from the Complainant to be furnished to the Opposite parties for their answers. Hence the following: 

ORDER

The Revision Petition is allowed. The order passed by the District Commission is hereby set aside.  

Send a copy of this order to the District Commission and parties for reference.

 

 

 

                 MEMBER                     JUDICIAL MEMBER 

 

 

 

*NG*