VERY IMPORTANT POINT
This is a landmark judgment on some of the problems with regard to the type of cases which the Consumer Fora should entertain or not entertain with special reference to medical negligence.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Type of cases which Consumer Fora will not entertain-Whether delay in disposal of cases by the Consumer Fora or Commission would be a ground for directing the complainant to approach Civil Court?-Nine years delay in disposal of medical negligence case-Whether a ground asking complainant to go to Civil Court? (No). (Paras 7, 8 and 9)-2000(7) SCC 608 : Relied on.
       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Section 13-Procedure to decide complaint-Types of cases-Which Consumer Fora will not entertain-Case of medical negligence-Complicated questions of facts for which expert doctor s evidence required needing their cross examination-Whether be referred to Civil Court? (No)-1995(6) SCC 65 clarified (See paras 10 and 11) -Nature of summary procedure explained-(C.P.C. 1908-Order VIII Rule 1-Representative complaint).
       Held : Under the Act the National Commission is required to be headed by a retired Judge of this Court and the State Commission is required to be headed by a retired High Court Judge. They are competent to decide complicated issues of law or facts. Hence, it would not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of experts is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the Civil Court. (Para 12)
       Held also : It was next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. (Para 13)
       Held further (on Section 13) : The National Commission or the State Commission is empowered to follow the said procedure. From the aforesaid Section it is apparent that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to be given notice directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the Commission. For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the version of the case is required to be adhered. If this is not adhered, the legislative mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five months would be defeated. (Para 14)
       Held in addition (referring to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC) : In view of the aforesaid provisions, the Commission can certainly refer to Order VII Rule 14 which provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in the Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. It appears that this mandatory requirement is not followed and thereafter, there is complaint of delay in disposal. Similarly, in case of written statement under Order VIII Rule I-A, defendant is required to produce the documents relied upon by him when written submission is presented. The Commission can always insist on production of all documents relied upon by the parties along with the complaint and the defence version. (Para 18)
       Held (on cross examination of experts) : It is true that it is the discretion of the Commission to examine the experts if required in appropriate matter. It is equally true that in cases where it is deemed fit to examine experts, recording of evidence before a Commission may consume time. The Act specifically empowers the Consumer Forums to follow the procedure which may not require more time or delay the proceedings. Only caution required is to follow the said procedure strictly. Under the Act, while trying a complaint, evidence could be taken on affidavits (under Section 13(4)(iii)). It also empowers such Forums to issue any Commission for examination of any witness [under Section 13(4)(v)]. It is also to be stated that Rule 4 in Order XVIII of C.P.C. is substituted when inter alia provides that in every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence. It also provides that witnesses could be examined by the Court or the Commissioner appointed by it. As stated above, the Commission is also empowered to follow the said procedure. Hence, we do not think that there is any scope of delay in examination or cross-examination of the witnesses. The affidavits of the experts including the doctors can be taken as evidence. Thereafter, if cross-examination is sought for by the other side and the Commission finds it proper, it can easily evolve a procedure permitting the party who intends to cross-examine by putting certain questions in writing and those questions also could be replied by such experts including doctors on affidavits. In case where stakes are very high and still party intends to cross-examine such doctors or experts, there can be video conferences or asking questions by arranging telephone conference and at the initial stage this cost should be borne by the person who claims such video conference. Further, cross-examination can be taken by the Commissioner appointed by it at the working place of such experts at a fixed time. (Para 20)
       Held finally : In any case, for avoiding the delay the District Forum or Commissions can evolve a procedure of levying heavy cost where adjournment is sought by a party on one or the other ground. This would have its own impact on disposing the complaints, appeals or revisions within the stipulated or reasonable time. For avoiding delay in disposal of cases, the procedure and the time limit prescribed under the Act and the Rules is required to be strictly adhered and followed. If there is proper mind set to do so on the part of all concerned, delay in disposal to a large extent could be avoided. (Para 21)
       (iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 24B-Administrative Control-Types of cases which Consumer Fora will not entertain-Delay in appointments of members-Insufficient infrastructure-Arrears of cases pending-Solutions suggested-Proposed 2002 amendment commented upon-Appeal disposed of accordingly.
       Held : For reducing the arrears and for seeing that complaints, appeals and revisions are decided speedily and within stipulated time, we hope that President of National Commission would draw the attention of the Government for taking appropriate actions within stipulated time and see that object and purpose of the Act is not frustrated. Further, National Commission has administrative control over the State Commissions and District Forums as provided under Section 24-B. (Paras 24 & 25)
       It can be hoped that the National Commission would ensure its best to see that District Forums, State Commissions and National Commission can discharge its functions as efficiently and speedily as contemplated by the provisions of the Act. The National Commission has administrative control over all the State Commissions inter alia for issuing of instructions regarding adoption of uniform procedure in hearing of the matters etc. It would have also administrative control in overseeing that the functions of the State Commissions or District Forums are discharged in furtherance of objects and purposes of the Act in the best manner. (Para 26)
       Held : (on proposed 2002 Amendments) : From the proposed amendment in the Act, it is apparent that Parliament is alive to the problems faced by the consumers and the consumers forums and, therefore, further directions are not required to be given. However, apart from the contemplated legislative action, it is expected that the Government would also take appropriate steps in providing proper infrastructure so that the Act is properly implemented and the legislative purpose of providing alternative, efficacious, speedy, inexpensive remedy to the consumers is not defeated or frustrated. Similar action is also expected from the National Commission as well as State Commissions. Hence, for avoiding delay in disposal of complaints within prescribed period, National Commission is required to take appropriate steps including:
        (a) By exercise of Administrative control, it can be seen that competent persons are appointed as Members on all levels so that there may not be any delay in composition of the Forum or the Commission for want of Members;
        (b) It would oversee that time limit prescribed for filing defence version and disposal of complaints is strictly adhered to;
        (c) It would see that complaint as well as defence version should be accompanied by documents and affidavits upon which parties intend to rely;
        (d) In cases where cross-examination of the persons who have filed affidavits is necessary, suggested questions of cross-examination be given to the persons who have tendered their affidavits and reply may be also on affidavits;
        (e) In cases where Commission deems it fit to cross-examine the witnesses in person, video conference or telephone conference at the cost of person who so applies could be arranged or cross-examination could be through a Commission. This procedure would be helpful in cross-examination of experts, such as Doctors. (Paras 36 & 37)
       In the result, with the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. IA Nos. 1 to 4 do not require any further consideration and stand disposed of accordingly. (Para 38)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with appropriate references:

The judgment addresses the scope and jurisdiction of Consumer Forums, particularly in cases involving medical negligence, emphasizing that such forums are equipped to handle complex issues of law and fact, including those requiring expert testimony (!) (!) .
The decision clarifies that delays in disposal of cases by Consumer Forums should not automatically lead to directing complainants to approach civil courts, as the Act aims to provide speedy and effective remedies (!) (!) .
The procedure for deciding complaints under the Act involves strict adherence to time limits, including the obligation of the opposite party to submit their version within a specified period, and the forums' power to enforce production of documents and affidavits to prevent delays (!) (!) .
The forums are empowered to examine witnesses, including experts and doctors, through affidavits, and may conduct cross-examinations via written questions, video conferences, or telephone conferences, to ensure timely proceedings (!) (!) .
To reduce backlog and expedite disposal, the forums can impose costs for adjournments sought without sufficient cause, and must strictly follow procedural safeguards to prevent unnecessary delays (!) (!) .
The national and state commissions have administrative control over the district forums and are responsible for overseeing their functioning, including appointment of members, adherence to procedural timelines, and infrastructure provisions (!) (!) .
Proposed legislative amendments aim to enhance the functioning of consumer dispute redressal agencies by creating benches, establishing circuit courts, and setting time-bound disposal targets, reflecting the legislative intent to improve efficiency (!) (!) .
The legislative framework emphasizes that consumer disputes involving straightforward issues can be swiftly decided, whereas complex cases involving expert evidence may require civil court intervention but should still be managed within the procedural safeguards of the Act (!) (!) .
The overarching goal of the Act and its amendments is to ensure that consumer disputes are resolved promptly, effectively, and with minimal procedural technicalities, thereby protecting consumer rights and reducing judicial delays (!) (!) .
Administrative measures, including the appointment of competent personnel and strict procedural adherence, are critical to achieving the objectives of the consumer protection framework and preventing case backlogs (!) (!) .

If you need further elaboration or specific legal advice based on these points, please let me know.

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Miscellaneous Petition No. 53 of 2000 was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "National Commission"), New Delhi in Original Petition No. 252 of 1993 by the appellants - doctors praying that complaint filed for alleged medical negligence be either dismissed as according to them complicated questions of law and facts arise which can best be decided by the Civil Court or in the alternative the proceeding be stayed during the pendency of criminal prosecution pending against them in criminal court at Mumbai. That application was rejected by the Commission. Hence, this appeal.

2. In the present case, complainant - respondent filed Original Petition before the National Commission on 26.8.1993 alleging that his son aged 21 years was admitted to the Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai on 4.8.1992 for operation of slip disc as he was suffering from backache. It was stated that before that, he had returned from USA in the month of June, 1992 after obtaining degree in Business Management. He died on 29th August, 1992 in the hospital itself. For this, he attributed medical negligence.

3. Before filing complaint before the National Commission, the complainant had also filed criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A/201 and 203 of Indian Penal Code. That prosecution is also pending. The Commission rejected the application by holding that there is no universal rule of law that during the pendency of criminal proceedings, civil proceedings must invariably be stayed. The Commission also observed that there was unexplained delay in moving such application at this stage and therefore, case requires to be decided at the earliest.

4. In this appeal, the Court issued notice on 7th December, 2001 and thereafter on 28th January, 2002 passed the following order :-

"It is contended by Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. R.F. Nariman, the learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenors that some guidelines will have to be laid down which are more precise in nature with regard to the type of cases which the Consumer Forum will not entertain, keeping in mind the decision of this Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shanta [1995(6) SCC 651] in paragraph 37. List after six weeks on a non-miscellaneous day before a Bench of Three Judges. In the meantime, there will be no stay of proceedings."

5. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nariman first submitted that considering - (a) the inordinate delay in disposal of the complaint, (b) complicated question of law and facts involved in this case depending upon medical experts opinion summary procedure is not proper remedy for deciding such issues, hence complainant should be directed to approach the Civil Court.

6. Reasons for delay as submitted by the Learned Counsel for the parties :-

(a) Delay in making appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Forum or Commission including National Commission;

(b) Not providing adequate infrastructure;

(c) Delay because of heavy workload and there is only one Bench or the National Commission of the State Commissions for deciding complaints;

(d) Delay in procedure;

7. Before dealing with reasons for delay, the first question which requires consideration is - whether delay in disposal of cases by the Consumer Forum or Commission would be a ground for directing the complainant to approach Civil Court?

8. In the present case, there is inordinate delay of about nine years in disposal of complaint. However, if this contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted, apart from the fact that it would be unjust, the whole purpose and object of enacting the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) would be frustrated. One of the main objects of the Act is to provide speedy and simple redressal to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 787

VERY IMPORTANT POINTThis is a landmark judgment on some of the problems with regard to the type of cases which the Consumer Fora should entertain or not entertain with special reference to medical negligence.

Cases Referred (2)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
This is a landmark judgment on some of the problems with regard to the type of cases which the Consumer Fora should entertain or not entertain with special reference to medical negligence.