Appeared at the time of arguments FA/2247/2018 For Appellant : Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate For R-1 & 2 : Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate Mr. Chandresh Pratap, Advocate Ms. Swati Mishra, Advocate For Impleader – Maya Devi : Ms. Ankita, Advocate for Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka, Advocate FA/789/2021 For Appellant : Ms. Ankita, Advocate for Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Mootha, Advocate for R-1 & 2 Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate for R-3 & 4 Pronounced on: 28th April 2023 ORDER Heard both the Appeals. 1. The peculiar facts emerging from both the Appeals are that the claimants are two parties and filed two separate Complaints before the State Commission, Jaipur against the Opposite Parties (the hospital and doctors) for alleged medical negligence, which caused death of Mr. Sanjay (for short the ‘Patient’). 2. The first Complaint CC No. 76 of 2017 of alleged medical negligence was filed by Shivadayal Paliwal and Susheela Paliwal, who were parents of the deceased. The Complaint was allowed by the State Commission vide Order dated 14.11.2018 and directed the OP-1 & 2 to pay Rs. 50 lakh to the Complainants (parents of the deceased) along with the interest @ 9 % from 12.07.2017. 3. Being aggrieved, the OPs – 1 and 2 filed the First Appeal (F.A. No. 2247 of 2018) and challenged the Order of the State Commission. 4. On 21.01.2019, Maya Devi, the wife of deceased, filed a separate (new) Consumer Complaint No 18/2019 before the State Commission and sought compensation of Rs. 95,20,534/- from the OPs as a result of death due to alleged medical negligence. He ground was that she was a first class legal heir of the deceased and her name was impleaded as one of the Complainants in CC/76/2018, which was filed by the parents of deceased. 5. The OPs, in their reply, filed an I.A. raising objections for filing such separate complaint again. The State Commission allowed the application and dismissed the said Complaint No. 18/2019 being not maintainable as res judicata. 6. Being aggrieved, Maya Devi filed the First Appeal No. FA/789/2021. 7. I have carefully perused the entire material on record from both the Appeals inter alia the Orders passed by the State Commission. 8. The controversy arises that on one hand, the parents were claiming compensation amount for the untimely death of their son, similarly, on the other hand, the wife was also claiming the amount for untimely death of her husband. In both the matters, the deceased was one and the same person. However, two separate complaints were filed. As per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the wife is the Class- I Legal Heir, therefore, she has legal right to file the Consumer Complaint and should be given sufficient opportunity to hearing. Admittedly, the parents have not made their daughter-in-law Maya Devi as one of the Complainants in their initial Consumer Complaint No. 76 of 2017. The State Commission, without considering the factual position of the parties, adjudicated the Complaint. Thus, in my view, it was not a res judicata. 9. Moreover, on careful perusal of the impugned Order, in my view, the State Commission held the OPs negligent without passing a reasoned Order. It just observed that, “Keeping in view the entire circumstances of the case, if a man of ordinary prudence looks at the endoscopy report, he would definitely draw the conclusion that the death of Sanjay was caused due to medical negligence and the respondent -1 and 2 are guilty of serious deficiency of service.” 10. The basic concept of the principles of natural justice is Audi alteram partem. It signifies that no man can be condemned without a hearing. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that before an order is passed against a person, he should be given an opportunity to be heard in the matter. Thus, the impugned Orders passed in both the Appeals are violative of the rule of audi alteram partem. 11. Therefore, at this stage, without touching to the merits of the case, in the ends of justice and for holistic adjudication, the matter is remitted back to the State Commission to decide the Complaint de novo by impleading Maya Devi as one of the Complainants in Complaint No. 76 of 2017. The State Commission shall give fair opportunity of being heard and pass a reasoned Order. Both the Appeals are disposed of with the above directions. The Parties to appear before the State Commission on 06.06.2023. The Registry is requested to send a copy of this Order to the State Commission and the respective parties within three days. | 
