KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 32/2022

ORDER DATED: 13.01.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 33/2022 of CDRC, Kannur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                               : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONERS:

1. M/s KIMS Al Shifa Super Speciality Hospital, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram-679 322.

2. Dr. Chandrashekhar K.S., MBBS (Registgrar in Orthopedics Department), KIMS Al Shifa Super Speciality Hospital, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram-679 322.

3. Dr. Shabeer Ali, Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, KIMS Al Shifa Super Speciality Hospital, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram-679 322.

4. Dr. Thomas Varghese, D-Ortho, MBBS, DNB-Ortho, KIMS Al Shifa Super Speciality Hospital, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram-679 322.

             (By Advs. Shyam Padman & S. Reghu Kumar)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Shinz Joseph, Oorakkattu House, Chandanakampara P.O., Chathurampuzha, Payyavoor Village, Thalipparamba Taluk, Kannur-670 633.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

The revision petitioners are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 33/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (District Commission for short).  The complaint was filed by the respondent herein seeking compensation for alleged medical negligence against the revision petitioners.  The complaint stood posted on 16.05.2022 for filing version of the revision petitioners.  According to the revision petitioners, the version had been prepared and made ready for filing sufficiently in advance as the date thereof would reveal.  Annexure A2 is a copy of the version and is dated 18.04.2022. 

2.  On 16.05.2022 it is stated that the counsel for the revision petitioners felt sick and therefore could not reach the District Commission on time.  When the case was called in court, there was no representation, in the above circumstances.  Noting that no version also had been filed, the revision petitioners were set ex-parte. 

3.  The revision petitioners immediately filed I.A. No. 44/2022 for setting aside the order declaring them ex-parte.  They also filed their version on the said date.  However, I.A. No. 44/2022 has been dismissed by the District Commission holding that it had no power to set aside the ex-parte order.  That dismissal order is challenged in this revision.

4.  According to Adv. Shyam Padman who appears for the revision petitioners, as per the order of the Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2020, the revision petitioners had time up to 29.05.2022 to file their version.  The order of the National Commission dated 14.01.2022 is also to the same effect, it is pointed out. The order under revision passed on 16.05.2022 in violation of the orders of the Supreme Court and the National Commission is submitted to be unsustainable and liable to be set aside, in revision. 

5.  This revision petition was admitted on 30.05.2022.  Though notice was served on the respondent, he has not chosen to appear or to contest this revision.  Therefore, on 11.08.2022 he was set ex-parte.  We have heard the counsel for the revision petitioners.

6.  According to the revision petitioners, C.C. No. 33/2022 stood posted on 16.05.2022 for filing version.  However, since the counsel felt sick and could not reach the court, there was no representation for the revision petitioners.  The version also was not filed.  The District Commission had therefore set the revision petitioners ex-parte, noting that version was also not filed.  The said order is produced as Annexure A3.  A perusal of Annexure A3 shows that the same is in violation of the order of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2020, which extended the time limits prescribed by the various enactments in our country up to 29.05.2022 in the wake of the extraordinary situation created by the spread of the pandemic Covid-19.  Since the said order as well as the order of the National Commission to the said effect were in force the revision petitioners ought not to have been set ex-parte.  The case of the revision petitioners that their version had been prepared and made ready on 18.04.2022 itself is substantiated by Annexure A2 which is a copy thereof.  Though the same is stated to have been filed along with I.A. No. 44/2022, the said petition also has been dismissed as per Annexure A4 order dated 24.05.2022.  The extended time limit for filing version was available to the revision petitioners up to 29.05.2022.  Therefore, it is only appropriate that the version of the revision petitioners is taken to file and an opportunity is given to them to contest the complaint C.C. No. 33/2022.

7.  In the above view of the matter, the orders under challenge in this revision, Annexure A3 dated 16.05.2022 in C.C. No. 33/2022 and Annexure A4 dated 24.05.2022 in I.A. No. 44/2022 in C.C. No. 33/2022 are liable to be set aside.  We do so. 

In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 16.05.2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur in C.C. No. 33/2022 and the order dated 24.05.2022 in I.A. No. 44/2022 in C.C. No. 33/2022 are set aside.  The District Commission shall take on file the version of the revision petitioners evidenced by Annexure A2 and shall proceed to consider and dispose of the complaint on the merits, after affording an opportunity to the revision petitioners to contest the matter.  No costs. 

                               Sd/-

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

           RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

jb