Key Points: - The judgment holds that summary dismissal solely for non-joinder of treating doctors is not proper; burden may shift to hospital to prove no negligence (!) (!) . - Hospital/institution is responsible to justify care taken and to produce the treating physician in defense where negligence is alleged (!) (!) . - The Act grants the Forum powers and procedural framework (summoning witnesses, production of documents, etc.) and applies CPC provisions to limited extent; non-joinder of necessary parties should not automatically defeat a complaint (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The burden lies on the hospital to satisfy there was no lack of care or diligence when a patient’s death or injury is alleged to be due to negligence (!) (!) . - The complainant should not be obliged to implead all treating doctors where identification is difficult; Rule 14(1)(b) allows "so far as they can be ascertained" for opposite party details (!) (!) . - The hospital’s responsibility extends to both permanent staff and contracted medical personnel engaged for treatment (!) (!) (!) . - The decision emphasizes that consumer protection aims to provide relief and should not defeat claims on technicalities of party-joinder; petition should proceed against the hospital with appropriate defense (!) (!) .

How to determine whether non-impleading of treating doctors requires dismissal of a consumer complaint seeking medical negligence?

What is the appropriate burden and party responsibility on hospitals/institutions to prove lack of negligence when treating doctors are not impleaded?

What are the rights and procedures for a National Commission or District Forum when there are multiple consumers and joinder of parties is incomplete?