STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

1.     Director, PGI, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

2.     Department of Neurosurgery through its Professor & Head PGI, Chandigarh.

                                                                .…Petitioners

                                Vs.

Meena widow of Late Roshan Deen s/o Noor Mohammad r/o VPO Sohin, Tehsil Amb, District Una (H.P.).

                                                …. Respondent 

Revision Petition under Section 17 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

           Respondent exparte.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.12.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which  the following directions were given :-

        “Reply by way of affidavit of the Medical Superintendent of PGI to the affidavit filed by the complainant dated 17.11.2011 filed. Copy given.

        The Medical Superintendent of PGI and counsel for OPs submitted that alongwith reply to the said affidavit; Annexure R/3 to Annexure R/14 had been annexed, which speaks with regard to complete record of ICU and Ventilators in the PGI.

        In view of the above, the Medical Superintendent of PGI, who is present today in the Court, is directed to file affidavit stating therein number of ventilators available in the Department of Neurology as on 5.1.2009; ventilators already provided to the patients on 5.1.2009; the defective ventilators, if any, on 5.1.2009, if so, since when; what steps were taken to cure the defects of the ventilators of the PGI till 5.1.2009; if there is any defective ventilators in the Department of  Neuro Surgery, why the steps were not taken to cure the defects; if there was scarcity of ventilators in Department of  Neuro Surgery, why the order to provide more ventilators was not placed; when the doctor advised for the ventilator & ICU for the patient and ventilator was not available, why the patient was not referred to some other institution for better management/treatment.

        To come up for further orders on 10.1.2012”.

2.                    The facts, in brief are that, the petitioners filed reply to the complaint, stating therein, that on account of limitation of the number of beds available, in the ICU, and also the ventilators, husband of the complainant, could not be shifted to the ICU, and was kept on manual ventilator instead of a mechanical one. It was further stated the records of the Institute showed that no beds were available in the ICU, at the relevant time. It was further stated that since the medical parameters of the deceased, were not very good, at the relevant time, he unfortunately expired, due to which the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum, alleging that the death of her husband, occurred due to his non-shifting to the ICU and not putting him on a ventilator.  It was further stated that the District Forum vide its order dated 12.05.2011 directed the petitioners to produce the relevant records to prove that on the said date in  the ICU the ventilators were not available.  It was further stated that the aforesaid order dated 12.05.2011 was complied with, by the petitioners, as is evident from the order dated 24.06.2011, but despite that the Medical Superintendent of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER) was directed to appear, in person, on the date fixed, alongwith affidavit, in support of the correctness of the record produced. It was further stated that the petitioners challenged the aforesaid order, before this Commission, in Revision Petition No.8 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.10.2011 (Annexure P-3). It was further stated that despite passing of the order dated 04.10.2011, the District Forum, directed the Medical Superintendent, to appear in person, before it, even though he was neither personally the custodian of the record, nor was a witness summoned by the parties.  It was further stated that the genuineness of the record, was not challenged, by any of the parties. It was further stated that the Medical Superintendent appeared, before the District Forum, on 22.12.2011, and submitted various documents with regard to the complete record of the ICU, and availability of ventilators, in the PGIMER. Despite this, the order, under revision, was passed directing the Medical Superintendent to furnish information which was wholly irrelevant, to the facts of the case, and also beyond his knowledge. It was further stated that the Medical Superintendent was not personally responsible for the repair and upkeep of the defective ventilators, if any, and the information sought was beyond the purview of his working.  It was further stated that the order of the District Forum, being beyond the scope of the complaint, and without any of the parties summoning him, as a witness, was  liable to be quashed and set aside.

3.                    The respondent was duly served, but was not present. Accordingly, she was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 07.03.2012.

4.                    We have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record carefully.

5.                    The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the District Forum exceeded its jurisdiction, by asking the Medical Superintendent of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, to furnish the information, by way of affidavit, which was completely irrelevant for adjudication of the controversy, involved in the complaint. He further submitted that, whatever, record was available, was produced, before the District Forum. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

6.                    After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the arguments, advanced by the Counsel for the petitioners, and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that for the complete and effective adjudication of the controversy, the District Forum was right, in directing the Medical Superintendent, to submit his affidavit, stating therein, the number of ventilators, available, in the Department of Neurology/Neurosurgery as on 05.01.2009; ventilators already provided, to the patients, and, in use, as on 05.01.2009; and the defective ventilators, if any,  on that date. However, the remaining directions, given by the District Forum, vide the order impugned, could not be said to be essential and necessary for the adjudication of controversy. In these circumstance, the revision petition deserves to be partly accepted, as indicated hereinbefore. 

7.                    For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, against the order dated 22.12.2011, directing the submission of affidavit of the Medical Superintendent stating therein, the number of ventilators available in the Neurosurgery Department/Neurology Department as on 05.01.2009; how many ventilators had already been provided to the patients in the said Department as on 05.01.2009; and how many ventilators were defective in the said Department as on 05.01.2009, being devoid of merit,  is dismissed. The order impugned, to this extent, is upheld.

8.                    The revision petition against the order dated 22.12.2011, to the extent, it relates to the giving of remaining directions, is accepted. The impugned order, to this extent is set aside.

9.                    The parties are directed to appear, in the District Forum on 29.03.2012, at 10.30 A.M, for further proceedings.

10.                 The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent to it immediately, so as to reach there before the date fixed.  

11.                 Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                                                  Sd/-

20.03.2012                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                              Sd/-                

                     [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg