Haryana

StateCommission

RP/77/2016

ALCHEMIST HOSPITAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHENDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.RANA

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Revision Petition No.   77 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       15.09.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         28.10.2016

  

Alchemist Hospital, Sector 21, Panchkula through its Authorized Signatory, Chief Executive Officer Dr. Vinay Verma.

Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Mahender Singh son of late Sh. Sant Ram son of late Sh. Mansa Ram, resident of House No.720, Sector 21, Panchkula.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Dr. I.S. Virdi, Alchemist Hospital, Sector 21, Panchkula.

3.      Dr. Hafeez, Alchemist Hospital, Sector 21, Panchkula.

4.      Dr. Rajan Mehra, Alchemist Hospital, Sector 21, Panchkula.

5.      Dr. Abhishek Garg, Administrator, Alchemist Hospital, Sector 21, Panchkula.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2 to 5

 

 

CORAM :   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                  

Present :    Shri Jagdeep Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

                   Shri Mahender Singh, respondent-complainant in person.

 

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          By filing this revision petition, Alchemist Hospital, Panchkula-opposite party No.1 (petitioner herein) has challenged the order dated April 29^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby its defence was struck off for non-filing of written version.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant took treatment from respondents No.2 to 4. The respondents No.2 to 4 left the job of petitioner and were ex parte before the District Forum. The respondents No.2 to 4 were not in contact with the petitioner and that is why, the written version could not be filed.  It has been further urged that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to file written version.

3.      The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to allow the petitioner to file written version. For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

4.      Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside subject to conditional cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the complainant. Consequently, the petitioner is accorded opportunity to file written version on the date fixed before the District Forum, that is, November 04^th, 2016.

5.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 28.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President