PRONOUNCED ON: 17th March 2017 ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 09.12.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Revision Petition No. 33/2016, Ruchika Sharma vs. Dr. Dorwal and Dental Hospital & Anr., vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 05.05.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur was set aside. 2. The facts of the case as stated in the revision petition are that the complainant/respondent went to the petitioner/OP hospital for the treatment of her teeth on 07.03.2014. She was advised that RIT of teeth was required, and a cap was to be fixed on the teeth. The OP received total payment of Rs. 4,700/- on 07.03.2014. On the subsequent sittings in the treatment as well, various other amounts were received from the complainant. However, the final bill for the amounts received for the treatment was not given to them. In the absence of the final bill, the father of the complainant could not get the amount spent on treatment from his employer. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP on various counts. It was also stated that treatment was not done correctly. The complainant was heard by the District Forum on 29.12.2015 and it was fixed for further hearing on 29.02.2016. Since none was present for the complainant before the District Forum on 29.02.2016, the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance. The complainant took the plea that their counsel had wrongly noted the next date of hearing as 29.04.2016. The factum of dismissal of complaint, therefore, came to their notice on 29.04.2016 and they submitted an application for restoration of the complaint. However, the District Forum, vide order dated 05.05.2016, declined to restore the complaint. The District Forum observed that the restoration application had been filed on 02.05.2016, which was 62 days after the dismissal of the complaint. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed a Revision Petition before the State Commission, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 09.12.2016. The order passed by the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was restored, subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as compensation to the opposite party. Being aggrieved against this order of the State Commission, the petitioner is before us by way of the present Revision Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the District Forum was correct in the eyes of law, because no reasonable ground had been stated by the complainant for their non-appearance before the District Forum on 29.02.2016. Moreover, the application for restoration had been filed after 62 days of the order dated 29.02.2016 and no reasons had been given for the delay in filing the same. 4. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. 5. A plain reading of the order dated 05.05.2016 of the District Forum, a copy of which has been filed on record, indicates that the complaint had been dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant on 29.02.2016. The restoration application was filed 62 days after the order dated 29.02.2016. The complainant, however, took stand before the State Commission that their counsel had wrongly noted the next date as 29.04.2016. The factum of dismissal of their complaint on 29.02.2016 came to their knowledge on 29.04.2016 and immediately, they filed the restoration application, which was not allowed by the District
Forum. The State Commission, after hearing the complainants, have directed the District Forum vide impugned order dated 09.12.2016 to hear the case on merits and have also imposed cost of Rs. 500/- as compensation, payable by the complainant to the non-applicant. I do not find anything wrong in the order passed by the State Commission, in directing the District Forum to decide the case on merits. The complainant should not be allowed to suffer for the fault of his counsel in wrongly noting the next date of hearing. Further, there was no necessity of issuing any notice to the petitioner/OP before passing the impugned order by the State Commission. There was no appearance of the petitioner/OP before the District Forum, when the impugned orders were passed. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the name of the complainant is Ruchika Sharma, whereas the vakalatnama had been filed by her mother Kavita Sharma, also does not hold any ground, because the complainant is stated to be living in Australia and her mother Kavita Sharma, is appearing as her attorney. 6. Based on the discussion above, this Revision Petition is ordered to be dismissed in limine. The order passed by the State
Commission is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. |
