Per Mr. P N Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

1.      Heard Adv. Mr S S Adkar for the revisionists, who have challenged the order dismissing their application dtd.15.07.2010 passed on 18.01.2011 by the District Consumer Forum, Akola in pending consumer complaint No.13/2010.

2.      In the pending consumer complaint the revisionists are the o.ps.  Since the consumer complaint is filed by Mr Mahadeo Bhimrao Daberao, Smt Reshma Mahadeo Daberao and their one year old son Master Krushna Mahadeo Daberao, it was alleged by the complainant that his wife Mrs. Reshma was admitted in the Shukla Children Hospital for delivery and she delivered child by name Krishna.  It is alleged by the complainant Mahadeo that one Mr Harish Chutlani’s wife was also admitted in the same hospital for delivery.  Their newly born child died due to wrong medication of o.ps and to cover up the same the o.p. gave in Krushna as their child to Mr Harish Chutlani and informed the non-applicants Nos. 2 & 3 that their child had expired during the treatment, which was being given to the child in the Hospital of o.p. On finding out the act of the o.ps. / applicants, Mr Harish Chutlani has lodged the FIR bearing No.255/2008 against the applicant No.2 - the owner of o.p.No.1 Hospital - in Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola and criminal proceedings against the applicant No.2 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), Akola and is being investigated by the Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola.  When respondent herein, learnt that this sort of mischief was committed by the said Hospital and Dr. P Shukla they filed consumer complaint bearing No.13/3010 before the District Consumer Forum, Akola and claimed compensation of `20.00 lacs alongwith 18% interest for mischief committed by o.p. – revisionists herein. 

3.      In that complaint an application was moved by the o.ps. / revisionists herein that this complaint should be stayed because the criminal complaint lodged by Mr H Chutlani is pending before the JMFC, Akola and under investigation of Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola and if this case is proceeded further the revisionists would have to disclose their defense, which would prejudice the criminal case that is filed by Ramdaspeth Police on the FIR lodged by Mr. Chutlani.

4.      We are of the view that the contention of Adv. Adkar in this revision petition is devoid of any substance. Consumer complaint filed by Daberao family against revisionists is claiming compensation of `20.00 lac alongwith 18% interest for the mischief committed by Dr P Shukla and his Children Hospital.  Whereas Mr. Chutlani’s grievance made in his FIR is for criminal mischief committed by Dr P Shukla & his Hospital, and the allegations made by the non-applicants – Daberao family in their consumer complaint, are quite different and therefore, the consumer complaint filed by the Daberao family – non-applicant herein cannot be stayed till the ultimate outcome of the FIR lodged by respondent Mr.Chutlani in Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola.  In the circumstances, there is no question to revisionists to get prejudiced if the complaint filed by Daberao family is allowed to proceed further. 

5.      The Forum below has rightly held that the proceeding of consumer complaint cannot be stayed simply because Mr. Chutlani has filed FIR against Dr. Shukla and his Hospital. The Forum below has rightly relied upon the judgment of National Commission to dismiss the application preferred by the revisionists. 

6.      In the circumstances, the order passed by the Forum below is quite correct and it is sustainable in law.  The Forum has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in passing interim order on application moved by the o.ps. / revisionists herein. Hence, we are inclined to reject the revision petition summarily and pass the following order

ORDER

1.      Revision Petition No.RP/11/14 is summarily rejected.

2.      Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 03.05.2011.

sj