1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, C/B at Madurai (‘the State Commission’) in R.P. No.07/2016 arising out of the order dated 28.03.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirappalli (‘the District Forum’) in C.M.P. No.22/2014 in C.M.P. No.309/2007 in C.C. No.179/2005.   

2.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/Complainant are that he filed Consumer Complaint No. 179/2005 against Railway authorities before the District Forum, in 2005. The case is still pending. At the time of filing the complaint, the complainant, aged 45, was working as a Laboratory Superintendent Grade-I in Railway Hospital, Trichy.  He suffered from a skin disease and sought treatment from OP-4 on 02.08.2000. A controversy arose with the medical officer and higher Railway officials, leading to his referral to various medical officers and a Medical Board to ascertain his fitness for service. The complainant resumed duty on 03.02.2003 after being placed on the sick list for certain periods. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench (O.A.No.162/2005), seeking to quash an order dated 28.01.2004 by OP-3 and requesting pay and allowances for periods from 25.08.2000 to 09.08.2001 and 10.05.2002 to 02.02.2003.  CAT dismissed the O.A., stating that the complainant had not made a case for interference.  In 2005, the complainant filed C.C. No.179/2005 before the District Forum for same relief against Railway authorities.  During the pendency of the case, he filed an application CMP No. 309/2007 to call the OPs to produce medical records. This was dismissed by the District Forum.  He filed Revision Petition No.13/2009 before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the petition, confirming the District Forum's order and holding the requested documents as confidential. The complainant approached the NCDRC for condoning the delay in filing the Revision Petition No.115/2011. This was dismissed on 08.03.2011 due to insufficient grounds for the delay of 119 days. This Commission also decided the case on merits, confirming the findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. 

3.      The complainant filed another application being CMP No.22/2014 before the District Forum for the production of medical records. The OPs filed an application being CMP No.59/2015 to set aside the ex parte order passed against them. Both applications were heard together. The District Forum, vide Order dated 28.03.2016, dismissed the complainant's application being C.M.P.No.22/2014 stating that under Section 22(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it had no power to review its own order and allowed the OPs application being C.M.P.No.59/2015 setting aside the ex parte order. Against the same, he filed a Revision Petition No.07/2016 and the State Commission, vide Order dated 07.12.2018, dismissed the R.P. No.07/2016 with the following observations:

“9.   Point for consideration whether the order passed the District Forum Tiruchirappalli in C.M.P.No.22/2014 is sustainable under law or not?

10. Point:- There is no dispute between the parties the petitioner/ complainant was appointed by the Railway authorities of the opposite parties as a Laboratory Superintendent Health Unit at Tiruchirappalli Southern Railway and he was taken some treatment with the opposite parties. Both the petitioner and opposite parties are working as staffs in Railway Department. The petitioner/complainant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with the identical prayer and the same was dismissed in the year 2006 itself. The opposite parties stated in their written version that the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since he is a regular Railway servant employed as Laboratory Superintendent in the Railway Hospital and there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties Southern Railway Administration. The petitioner/ complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer Forum and also stated that no deficiency in service no monetary consideration was levied from the petitioner/ complainant for the medical treatment given to him. It is only a welfare scheme intended for the benefit of the Railway employees and their dependent Members. The complainant has no locus standi or authority to prefer any such complaint by invoking jurisdiction of Consumer Forum.

10. Being this situation the complaint filed by the petitioner is still pending for the past 13 years before the District Forum, Tiruchirappalli. The petitioner/complainant filed the second round of application for the same relief.

11. The Learned District Forum, Tiruchirappaili by considering the representation of both parties and citations referred by the parties and held that the District Forum and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai do not enjoy any power of reviewing their own orders or recalling them.

12. The question of commission of fraud against court proceedings was already decided in favour of the respondents/opposite parties that the non disclosure of Medical Board Report is within the rule 554/IRMM and the report of the Medical Board should be treated as confidential. Therefore, the non disclosure of Medical Board cannot be said to be illegal on the part of the respondents. The above finding of the Central Administrative Tribunal is binding on the petitioner/complainant herein.

13. Hence, we do not find any necessity or grounds warranting our interference with the order passed by the Learned District Forum, Tirunchirappalli in C.M.P.No.22/2014 and hence we are of the view that the order passed by the District Forum is sustainable under law and point is answered accordingly.

14. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.”

4.      Being dissatisfied by the Order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the State Commission in R.P. No.07/2016, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the present Revision Petition No.651 of 2019 before this Commission.

5.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful considerations to the arguments advanced by the petitioner/complainant and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

6.      In his arguments, the Petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that the respondents have been withholding medical records for over 20 years, violating the Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, specifically Regulation 1.3.2, which mandates providing medical records within 72 hours upon request. He filed Consumer Complaint No.179/2005 filed on 01.02.2005 before the District Consumer Forum, Tiruchirappalli, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service. To resolve the issue of medical negligence, the petitioner needs the medical records for the treatment period from 25.08.2000 to 02.02.2003, which the respondents have withheld. Hence, he filed CMP No.309/2007 in CC No.179/2005 seeking the production of these records. He asserted that the Consumer Commissions are not bound by the decisions of the CAT, which declined to order the production of medical records in O.A. No.162/2005. The Consumer Commissions operate independently and are not administratively subordinate to the CAT. He asserted that the CAT had directed the respondents to produce the medical records in O.A. No.162/2005, but this fact was intentionally suppressed by the respondents in the current proceedings.  The refusal to produce medical records violates Regulation 13-A of the National Medical Commission's Regulations and constitutes a deficiency in service. He relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh, which states that courts and tribunals can recall orders obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, implying that the respondents' actions are fraudulent.  He filed a Review Petition CMP No.22/2014 before the District Forum, Tiruchirappalli, which was not reviewed and the later Revision Petition (RP No.7/2016) was rejected by State Commission, Madurai. He argued that the respondents have no immunity under any regulation or law to withhold the medical records, which are not confidential and should be produced. He referred to the Bombay High Court decision in Raghunath Reheja Vs. Maharashtra Medical Council, AIR 1996 Bombay 198 which mandates that hospitals and doctors cannot claim secrecy or confidentiality in matters of patient case papers. The petitioner asserted that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes the right to know, which can be enforced by consumer protection forums/commissions.  The continued withholding of medical records by the respondents suggests potential negligence and deficiency in treatment, which the records would likely reveal.  He emphasized that seeking a review of the order in CMP No.309/2007 to correct errors is a legitimate judicial step to ensure his right to access his medical records. He petitioner disputed the respondents' claim that the complaint in the District Forum is pending for pronouncement of order, arguing that it is pending due to the lack of medical records.  He sought to allow the present revision petition and set aside the Order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the State Commission, in R.P.No.7/2016.

7.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 3 argued that the petitioner's current petition is an abuse of the legal process. The core issue is whether the District Consumer Forum has the authority to review its own order, which has been confirmed by both the State Commission and this Commission. He further submitted that the petitioner previously filed O.A No. 162/2005 before the CAT, which was dismissed. This order has attained finality as it was not challenged by the petitioner. Subsequently, he filed CC No. 179 of 2005 before the District Forum which is pending for pronouncement. The petitioner also filed CMP 309/2007, which was dismissed on 11.07.2018. Appeals against this order to the State Commission in Appeal 13/2009 and this Commission being RP/115/2011 were also dismissed. He filed Review Petition No. 22 of 2014, claiming that the forum has inherent power to review its own order. This petition was dismissed by District Forum on 28.03.2016. He challenged the District Forum order by filing RP No. 07/2016 before the State Commission, which was also dismissed on 07.12.2018. He is deliberately delaying the proceedings of his complaint by filing repetitive applications with same prayers, knowing that a review petition is not maintainable under Section 22 of the Act, 1986. Hence, the District Forum and the State Commission rightly dismissed the review petition. He argued in favour of the impugned orders passed by the fora below.

8.      I have gone through the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.

9.      The main issue for consideration is whether the rejection of the order passed by the learned State Commission dated 07.12.2018 in Revision Petition is sustainable.

10.    In this regard, it is undisputed that the petitioner/complainant was an employee of the OP (Indian Railways). He had taken certain medical treatment from OPs. As the petitioner/complainant had certain grievances with respect to medical treatment and reports, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with an identical prayer. The same was considered by the learned CAT and was dismissed in the year 2006. Being a Government employee, having taken in service medical treatment, he chose to file a Consumer Complaint and agitate the grievance before the learned District Forum. The OPs objected to the same contending that he is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer Forum. They also contended the absence of any deficiency in service and absence of any monetary consideration for the medical treatment. The said complaint is pending before the learned District Forum.

11.    The matter was under consideration by CAT earlier and was dismissed. The same grievance is filed before the learned District Forum. During the pendency of the case, he filed CMP No. 309/2007 to call the OPs to produce medical records. This was dismissed by the District Forum.  He filed Revision Petition No.13/2009 before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the petition, confirming the District Forum's order and holding the requested documents as confidential. The complainant approached the NCDRC by filing Revision Petition No.115/2011. This was dismissed on 08.03.2011 due to insufficient grounds for the delay of 119 days. The complainant filed another application being CMP No.22/2014 before the District Forum for the production of medical records. The OPs filed an application being CMP No.59/2015 to set aside the ex parte order passed against them. Both applications were heard together. The District Forum, vide Order dated 28.03.2016, dismissed the complainant's application being C.M.P.No.22/2014 stating that under Section 22(A) of the Act, 1986, it had no power to review its own order and allowed the OPs application being C.M.P.No.59/2015 setting aside the ex parte order. Against the same, he filed a Revision Petition No.07/2016 and the State Commission, vide Order dated 07.12.2018, dismissed the R.P. No.07/2016. The question of issue of allegation of fraud against court proceedings was already decided in favour of the respondents/ OPs that pertaining to non-disclosure of Medical Board Report is considered as within the scope of Rule 554 of IRMM and the report of the Medical Board is treated as confidential. Therefore, the finding of non-disclosure of Medical Board cannot be said to be illegal on the part of the respondents has been made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has not been challenged by the complainant/petitioner. Therefore, the order attained finality.

12.    It has been stated that the original Complaint filed on 01.02.2005 is still pending. There have been multiple and repetitive applications seeking same or similar relief while a review petition before the District Forum is not maintainable under Section 22 of the Act, 1986.

13.    In view of the above, clearly the learned District Forum and learned State Commission rightly dismissed the Review Petition in CMP No.22/2014 and I do not find any necessity or grounds warranting interference with the order passed by the Learned District Forum and the State Commission. As a result, the instant Revision Petition is dismissed.

14.    There shall be no order as to costs.

15.    All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.