MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.       This is a revision petition filed by the OP i.e. Emirates India against order dated 21.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 1471 of 2009 whereby the application of the revision petitioner/OP for summoning the doctor of Chandigarh Medical Centre, who had given the medical report dated 8.10.2009, along with the case record for cross examination, was allowed by the learned District Forum, with the following observation :-

“Heard. We are of the opinion that testimony of the Doctor would be material for the just & proper adjudication of the case. Instead of summoning the witness, it would be appropriate if OP obtains the affidavit from the Doctor of Chandigarh Medical Centre, SCO No. 52,53,54, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, who had given the report dated 8.10.2009. We, therefore, allow the application. The OP shall obtain affidavit from the concerned Doctor of Chandigarh Medical Centre, which shall be filed before this Forum on 10.2.2010. “

2.          Aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2010 passed by the learned District Forum, the OP filed the instant revision petition.

3.       We have heard Sh.Anil Sharma, Advocate for the revision petitioner/OP, Sh.Surinder Jathaul, respondent/complainant in person and have perused the record, carefully.

 4.      The Counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted that since the report of the doctor was submitted by the complainant, the District Forum was required to direct him to submit this affidavit, in support thereof. He further submitted that no direction could be given to the revision- petitioner/OP to submit the affidavit of the doctor, as the onus to prove the report and the medical record furnished alongwith the same, was on the complainant/respondent. He further submitted that order being illegal is liable to be set aside.

5.       On the other hand, the complainant/respondent submitted that since the report of the doctor alongwith the medical record was placed by him, on record, it was for the revision-petitioner to rebut the same. He further submitted that the order being legally valid is liable to be upheld.

6.       After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and the respondent, in our considered opinion, the revision petition is liable to be accepted, in the following manner. The medical report, dated 8.1.2009 in favour of the complainant was allegedly given by the doctor. In our opinion the onus to prove that the medical report dated 8.1.2009 given by the concerned doctor was correct and true, lay on the complainant. Thus, it was for the complainant/respondent to obtain the affidavit of the doctor and submit the same on record. In so far as the right of the revision-petitioner, to cross-examine the doctor, after his affidavit is placed on the record by the complainant, is concerned, it would be for the District Forum, to decide, in accordance with law, whether cross-examination of such doctor was necessary. If the District Forum, came to such a conclusion, then cross-examination could be conducted through interrogatories. The order of the District Forum, thus, suffers from illegality and perversity, and is liable to be set aside.

7.       For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition, is accepted in the manner, referred to above. The impugned order is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned District Forum on 21.4.2011 at 10.30 AM sharp. The records of the District Forum be sent at once.

8.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                        

8^th April, 2011.