STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Revision Petition No. | : | 09 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 14.12.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 01.02.2013 |
Dr. Batra`s Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.16-17, Sector 9D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Administrative Officer-cum-Authorized signatory Avtar Singh.
…… Revision Petitioner/ Opposite Party
V e r s u s
Master Harjot Singh s/o Jagmohan Singh, through his father and natural guardian Jagmohan Singh s/o Nirmaljot Singh, R/o H.No.19, Shivalik Vihar, Near UCO Bank, Nayagaon, Distt. Mohali (Punjab), Mob. No.9888373900
....Respondent/complainant
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Aftab Singh Khara, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.
Sh. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the respondent.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it partly allowed Miscellaneous Application No.192 of 2012, filed by the Opposite Party (now Revision Petitioner).
2. The facts, in brief, are that Master Harjot Singh, complainant, through his father Sh. Jagmohan Singh, filed a complaint, on account of the medical negligence of the Opposite Party, while giving treatment for hair loss. He, thus, claimed compensation. The complaint was earlier dismissed by the District Forum, on 16.06.2011. The appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, was accepted, and the order of the District Forum was set aside. The case was remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to decide the complaint afresh, on merits, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the complainant led the evidence.
3. After the remand of the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit, alongwith documents, as also affidavit of Dr. Paramjit Singh Ranu, Homeopathy Expert, by way of evidence.
4. The Opposite Party (now Revision-Petitioner) filed an application for cross examination of the complainant and Dr. Paramjit Singh Ranu.
5. The District Forum declined the application for cross-examination of Mr. Jagmohan Singh, father of the complainant, and gave permission to the Opposite Party to submit a list of suggested questions, to be put to Dr. Paramjit Singh Ranu, Homeopathy Expert, during cross-examination, and, thereafter, he could be asked to give his reply to those questions, by way of affidavit.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant Revision-Petition, was filed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner, submitted that since the father of the complainant, submitted an affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, certain documents were attached, after the case was remanded by this Commission, the Opposite Party was required to be afforded an opportunity, to cross-examine him, but the District Forum, was wrong, in declining the same. He further submitted that the cross-examination of Dr. Paramjit Singh Ranu, Homeopathy Expert, in the District Forum, was essential for the just decision of the case, as the suggested questions for cross-examination, and, replies to the same, by way of affidavit, by him, could not serve the purpose, and was also not in the interest of justice. He further submitted that according to Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act only), the District Forum could summon the witness, for the purpose of cross-examination. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that nothing was mentioned, by the Opposite Party/Revision Petitioner, in the application, as to what for the cross-examination of Sh. Jagmohan Singh, father of the complainant, was essential. He further submitted that nothing was stated in the application, on which the impugned order was passed, as to why the cross-examination of Dr. Paramjit Singh Ranu, Homeopathy Expert, in the District Forum, was essential, and why his reply to the questionnaires, if submitted by the Opposite Party, for his cross-examination, by way of affidavit, could not serve the purpose. He further submitted that the proceedings before the Consumer Foras, being summary, in nature, the normal mode of cross-examination of a witness, if essential, is by way of submission of interrogatories/ questionnaires, and the said witness could answer the same, by way of affidavit. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
10. As stated above, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on 16.06.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed appeal, which was accepted and the case was remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to decide the complaint afresh, on merits, in accordance with law. It was, thereafter, that the father of the complainant submitted affidavit, alongwith some documents. Under these circumstances, if, the Opposite Party (now Revision-Petitioner), wanted to cross-examine him, in our considered opinion, it was required to be afforded an opportunity to submit list of suggested questions/questionnaires/ interrogatories, to which he (father of the complainant), could file reply, by way of affidavit(s). The Opposite Party was required to be granted an opportunity, to rebut the additional evidence, alongwith certain documents, led by the father of the complainant, after the remand of the case, by this Commission. The order of the District Forum, to the extent of declining the cross-examination of father of the complainant, by way of filing reply, in the shape of affidavit to the questions/questionnaires/ interrogatories, if submitted by the Opposite Party , does not appear to be correct. The District Forum did not exercise the Jurisdiction vested in it, on sound Judicial principles, by declining this request of the Opposite party (now Revision-Petitioner). To this extent, the order of the District Forum, is liable to be set aside, in the manner, indicated above.
11. Dr. Paramjit Singh Ranu, submitted his affidavit, as Homeopathy Expert. The Opposite Party was required to rebut his expert opinion. As stated above, the proceedings before the Consumer Foras are summary, in nature, and the evidence, is, in almost all the cases, is taken by way of affidavits. In Dr. J.J. Merchant V. Shrinath Chaturvedi, IV (2002) SLT 714 =III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC) =2002 CTJ 757 (SC) (CP), the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, held that, in case, where cross-examination of the persons, who have filed affidavit(s), is necessary, suggested questions of cross-examination be given to the persons, who have tendered their affidavits and reply, may also be taken on affidavits. It was also held that, in cases where Commission deems fit to cross- examine the witnesses in person, video conference or telephonic conference at the cost of person, who so applies could be arranged or cross-examination could be through a Commission. This procedure would be helpful in cross-examination of experts, such as, Doctors. The principle of law, laid down, in Dr. J.J. Merchant`s case (supra), clearly goes to show that the Jurisdiction is vested, in the Consumer Fora, as to which course is required to be adopted by it. The District Forum was right, in holding that nothing was suggested, in the application, as to why the cross-examination of Dr. Paramjit Singh Ranu, Homeopathy Expert, before the District Forum, was necessary. No doubt, during the course of arguments, the Counsel for the Opposite Party/Revision Petitioner, submitted that, if, Dr. Paramjit Singh Ranu, Homeopathy Expert, was examined, in the District Forum, his demeanor shall be noticed by it. It is not a criminal case, which has to be decided by the District Forum. Since, proceeding before the Consumer Foras, are summary, in nature, lengthy procedure is not required to be adopted, in the Consumer Disputes. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the Opposite Party should submit the list of suggested questions/questionnaires/interrogatories, to be put to Dr. Paramjit Singh Ranu, Homeopathy Expert, so that the same could be supplied to him, and he should file reply to the same, by way of affidavit. No ground, whatsoever, was made out, for summoning Dr. Paramjit Singh Ranu, Homeopathy Expert, to the District Forum, for the purpose of cross-examination. The District Forum, thus, rightly exercised the Jurisdiction, vested in it, directing the Opposite Party, to submit the list of suggested questions/questionnaires/ interrogatories, for cross-examining Dr. Paramjit Singh Ranu, Homeopathy Expert, so that he could file reply to the same, by way of affidavit. This part of the order of the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission, and is liable to be upheld.
12. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the Revision- Petition, is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum, declining the prayer of the Opposite Party (now Revision-Petitioner), to cross-examine Sh. Jagmohan Singh, father of the complainant, by way of submitting a list of suggested questions, to which he could file reply, by way of affidavit, being illegal, is set aside.
14. The remaining part of the impugned order, as indicated in paragraph number 11 is upheld.
15. The parties are directed to appear, before District Forum (I) on 11.02.2013, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.
16. The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back to it immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 11.02.2013, at 10.30 A.M..
17. Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file of the Revision Petition be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.
Pronounced.
01.02.2013
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Rg
