NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3306/2016

M/S. FORTIS HEALTH CARE LTD. & 3 ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUBHASH CHANDER KAKKAR - Opp.Party(s)

MS. M. MALIKA CHAUDHARI & MR. MUKESH KUMAR

18 May 2018

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3306 OF 2016
 
(Against the Order dated 02/09/2016 in Appeal No. 749/2008 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. M/S. FORTIS HEALTH CARE LTD. & 3 ORS.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE, OKHLA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110025
2. FORTIS HOSPITAL, MOHALI
THROUGH ITS MANAGING/ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD, SECTOR 62, PHASE VIII,
MOHALI-160062
PUNJAB
3. DR. R.K. JASWAL, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR,
INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY, FORTIS HOSPITAL MOHALI, SECTOR 62, PHASE VIII
MOHALI-160062
PUNJAB
4. FORTIS HOSPITAL(CITY CENTRE)
THROUGH ITS CENTRE MANAGER, SCO 56-57, SECTOR 9D, MADHYA MARG,
CHANDIGARH-160017
UT
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SUBHASH CHANDER KAKKAR
R/O. HOUSE NO. 394, SECTOR 44-A,
CHANDIGARH
UT
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Ms. M. Malika Chaudhuri, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate

Dated : 18 May 2018
ORDER

Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, namely, Fortis Health Care Ltd.; Fortis Hospital; and one of its Doctors, is to the order, dated 02.09.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Miscellaneous Application No. 48 of 2016.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Application, filed on behalf of the Petitioners, seeking permission to place on record an additional document, namely, Emergency Room History Sheet (ER).  The State Commission has come to the conclusion that since the said document was prepared as far back as on 13.08.2005 and was available with the Petitioners at the time of filing their Written Version, they cannot be granted further opportunity to bring on record the said document after a lapse of number of years.  The State Commission has observed that the said document was sought to be brought on record only after the submission of the report by PGIMER on 29.01.2008, that too after seeking a number of adjournments for addressing arguments.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties.  Bearing in mind the nature of the case, involving the allegation of medical negligence, and further in order to have an effectual adjudication on the issues raised in the Complaint, we are of the opinion that the Petitioners should have been permitted to bring on record the said document.  We hold accordingly.  Nevertheless, the evidence on behalf of the Complainant has already been filed, it will be open to the Complainant to file additional evidence in rebuttal, including the objection, if any, regarding the authenticity of the said document, if so advised.

Consequently, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, with a direction that the said document(s) shall form part of the record, subject to the Petitioners paying to the Complainant a sum of ₹5,000/- as costs.  The costs shall be paid to the Complainant before the State Commission.

The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 25.07.2018 for further proceedings in accordance with law.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

 
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
M. SHREESHA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.