STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA  

                                                                  Date of Institution: 30.05.2023

                Date of final hearing: 08.07.2024

                      Date of pronouncement: 08.07.2024

Revision Petition No.52 of 2023

1.      Dr. Joginder Singh Dhankar, Dhankar Nursing Home at Panchi Road,      Ganaur, District Sonepat, Haryana-131001.

2.      Dr. Shyam Jain through and care of Dr. Joginder Singh Dhankar, Dhankar           Nursing Home at Panchi Road, Ganaur District Sonepat, Haryana-131001.

                                                                   .….Petitioners

Versus

1. Master Vivansh through his mother and natural guardian namely Smt. Ritu w/o Sh. Pardeep Kumar R/o Village Pipli Khera, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat.                                                                                 

….Contesting Respondent

2. Vidya Devi Memorial Hospital at Ganaur, District Sonepat through its Managing Director/authorized person.
3. Dr. Deepshri Sharma (M.B.B.S.) (M.D.), Obstetrics and Gynecologist in and care of Vidya Devi Memorial Hospital at Ganaur, District Sonepat.

….Performa Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member. 

Present:-    Mr. Ketan Antil, counsel for petitioners.

                   None for respondent No. 2 & 3.

O R D E R

PER: NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

                             Delay of 149 days in filing of present revision petition stands condoned for the reasons stated in application for condonation of delay.

2.                In this revision petition; petitioners has challenged order dated 12.09.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Sonepat vide which OPs No.3 and 4 were proceeded against ex-parte. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that petitioners/OPs No. 3 & 4 have their place of working at Gannaur, which is located at a far distance from learned District Consumer Commission-Sonpeat. They engaged counsel to appear before learned District Consumer Commission. Main counsel of petitioners-Mr. Yudhvir Singh was busy in Gannaur Court and he entrusted brief and power of attorney to his junior counsel, but on way to learned District Consumer Commission, junior counsel was hit by stray cattle/bull while he was riding on his bike and received several injuries. Due to accident; said junior counsel not reach court on time. Learned counsel for petitioners further contended that non-appearance of revisionist on material day (12.09.2022) was neither intentional nor it was accentuated by any mala-fide.

3.                Since, complaint pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat, as contended by learned counsel for revisionists, is still at its initial stage, therefore, this Commission is of firm opinion that no prejudice would be caused to complainant (Master Vivansh) in case revisionists are allowed to join proceedings of complaint case. While observing so, this Commission is conscious of well settled legal adage that all procedural laws are meant to sub-serve the cause of justice and not to defeat the same. Further, in process of justice dispensation, every litigant must be afforded adequate opportunity to put forward his/her/its case in a meaningful manner.  In case titled as Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Another, Civil Appeal No. 4307 of 2007 AND case titled as M.O.H. Lathers Vs. United Commercial Bank Civil Appeal No.8155 of 2001 both decided on 19.08.2011 reported in 2011 (4) PLR 274; Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “State Commission or District Consumer Forum do not have power to set aside their own ex-parte order nor they have power to review their own orders.  This power vests in National Commission only by Section 22 (A) of the Act.” It would legally imply that ex-parte order passed by learned District Consumer Commission can be legally assailed by filing revision petition.

4.                In view of above, this revision petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-P/1) passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Sonepat in Complaint Case No.191 of 2022 titled as Master Vivansh Vs. Vidya Devi Memorial Hospital & others is hereby set aside. Revisionists (Dr. Joginder Singh Dhankhar & another.-OPs No.3 & 4 in Complaint Case No. 191 of 2022) would now appear before learned District Consumer Commission on 11.07.2024, either through its authorized representative or through counsel. It would however, be subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by revisionists- Dr. Joginder Singh Dhankhar & Another in District Legal Services Authority-Sonepat and receipt in this regard would be produced in record of Complaint Case (C.C. No.191 of 2022) pending before learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat. After putting appearance by revisionists on 11.07.2024, on force of this order; learned District Consumer Commission would grant revisionists just one effective opportunity for the purpose of filing its written statement/version.

5.                A copy of this order be provided to all parties, free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission for perusal of parties.

6.                File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced on 8^th July, 2024

                                                                        S.C. Kaushik                  Naresh Katyal                                                                         

                                                                            Member                          Judicial Member

                                                                        Addl. Bench                   Addl. Bench

D.K.