Petitioner G. B. Pant Hospital was not a party respondent either before the District Forum or the State Commission.  It had no opportunity to contest the complaint as it was not a party respondent in the complaint.  The State Commission, for the first time, without impleading the petitioner, burdened it with the liability to pay the compensation, which could not be done. 

-2-

          Limited notice was issued to the respondents as to why the impugned order be not set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent no.1 fairly states that the petitioner was not made a party respondent in the complaint and the complainant had not claimed any relief after the petitioner.  He has no objection to the setting aside of the impugned order and remittance of the case to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

          Revision petition is allowed.  Order under revision petition is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after serving the appellant and M/s Advance Micronix Devices Limited which was impleaded as respondent no.2 before the State Commission. 

          Complainant/respondent no.1 is directed to appear before the State Commission on 09.11.2010.

          Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal at the earliest and, preferably within six

-3-

weeks from the first date of appearance after due service on the parties, except the respondent no.1/complainant who has been directed to appear before the State Commission on the said date.