Petitioner was the opposite party no.1 before the District Forum.

                Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite party no.1 hospital, petitioner herein, and the opposite party no.2, the Doctor in his

-2-

treatment.  The said complaint was allowed by the District Forum against opposite party no.1 and dismissed against opposite party no.2.  Opposite party no.1 was directed to pay an amount of                    Rs.2 Lacs apart from medical expenses of Rs.30,000/- with costs of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amount was to carry interest from such at @ 12% p.a. till the date of payment.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission disposed of the appeal in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties.  Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim, which was accepted by the counsel for the respondent.    The State Commission in view of the agreement arrived at directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant in full and final settlement of the claim within two months, failing which the petitioner was to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum till the date of realization.

          Petitioner has filed the present revision petition with the allegation that counsel for the petitioner did not have any authority to

-3-

make a statement agreeing to pay Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant in full and final settlement; that the statement was made by the counsel unauthorizedly without his knowledge; that the petitioner had a good case on merits. 

We find no infirmity in the order passed.  The State Commission has disposed of the appeal on the basis of statement made by the counsel for the parties.  The affidavit of the Advocate, who had appeared on behalf of the petitioner, saying that he did not make the statement before the State Commission, has not been filed.  It is not disputed before us that the counsel appearing for the petitioner had the authority to make the statement on behalf of the petitioner.  Since the appeal was disposed of in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.