BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
RP.NO. 40/2021
Appellant/s |
1 . The Chairman & Director .
Manipal Hospital Bengaluru-560017 Rep by its Unit Head
Bangalore
(By SV Joga Rao) |
Respondent/s |
1 . Vijayakumar A .
Vijaykumar A C/o Smt. Manjula, Aishwarya Beaty Parlor, Sonnappa Building, Thindlu Circle, Thindlu, Vidyaranyapura P.O., Bengaluru-560097
Bengaluru |
06.07.2021
ORDER
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3 has preferred this Revision Petition being aggrieved by the Order dt.06.04.2021 passed in CC.No.1114/2010 on the file of 2nd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore by rejecting the application to permit them to mark the documents which are supposed to be produced.
2. The petitioner submits that the complainant has filed a complaint alleging medical negligence claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 to 20 lakhs and the petitioner has also filed elaborate version and subsequently the complainant filed affidavit evidence along with documents. This petitioner also filed affidavit evidence and documents. Subsequently, the case was posted for arguments. When facts remain thus, the complainant came with an application on 20.06.2020 to recall the complainant to file his documents, accordingly, the application was allowed and the complainant was permitted to file their documents. After that, the Opposite Party No.3/petitioner preferred an application on 19.02.2021 to recall them to mark the documents, but, after receiving the objections from the complainant, the District Commission rejected his application without any valid reasons and submits to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and permit them to mark the documents produced before the District Commission.
3. Heard the arguments.
4. On going through the petition and certified copy of the order, we noticed that it is a case of medical negligence where the complainant claims compensation to the tune of Rs.15 to 20 lakhs. We also noticed that both parties have filed their documents at the stage of their evidence respectively, but, the documents were not marked by this Revision Petitioner at the time of earlier filing. Subsequently, they have collected other relevant documents in support of their case and filed an application to recall them to produce before the District Commission and to mark the same, but, the District Commission rejected the same. We noticed that the application is for production and mark the documents only and not to lead any fresh evidence. Since it is a medical negligence case, the thorough examination of medical records is very much required for adjudication of the dispute. Though the Revision Petitioner had filed an application to produce and to mark the documents is belated one and it has to be allowed. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The Revision Petition is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the complainant.
The order passed by the District Commission by dismissing the application for production and marking the documents is set aside and the District Commission is directed to allow the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3 to mark the documents and to dispose-of the case expeditiously.
Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
