ORDER

1. DELAY CONDONED.

2. LEAVE GRANTED.

3. HEARD PARTIES.

4. IN OUR VIEW THE ORDER OF THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. BY AN ORDER DATED 18-4-2002, THE FATHER AND MOTHER OF THE DECEASED CLAIMANTS HAD ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AS A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. OF COURSE, THE FATHER HAD ALREADY DIED ON THE DATE HE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BUT THE MOTHER WAS ALIVE AND CONTINUED TO BE ON RECORD.

5. IT APPEARS THAT THE REVISION PETITION WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION ON 13-1-2003. ON THE APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION NO SPECIFIC ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED RESTORING OR NOT RESTORING THE REVISION PETITION. HOWEVER, THE LAST LINE B OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER STATES THAT THE REVISION PETITION STANDS DISMISSED. THIS IMPLIES THAT THE REVISION PETITION WAS RESTORED. THE ONLY GROUND FOR THEN DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION IS AS FOLLOWS:

"HOWEVER, WE FIND IN THIS CASE THE MINOR SUFFERED INJURIES AND HE FILED THIS COMPLAINT THROUGH HIS BROTHER AS HIS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE FATHER AND MOTHER AND MOREOVER DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE COMPLAINT THE MINOR HAS DIED AND NOW THEY WANT THAT COMPLAINT BE PROCEEDED WITH THROUGH THE FATHER AND MOTHER. WE PUT IT TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL AS TO HOW RIGHT TO SUE SURVIVES IN THE PRESENT CASE."

6. WITH GREAT RESPECT TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONING OF THE COMMISSION. THE MOTHER IS ALREADY ON D RECORD. THE ORDER DATED 18-4-2002 ALLOWING THE MOTHER TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD MUST HAVE BEEN PASSED ON THE FOOTING THAT THE RIGHT TO SUE SURVIVED IN THE MOTHER. EVEN OTHERWISE THE COMPLAINT WAS FOR COMPENSATION FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE. IN SUCH A COMPLAINT THE RIGHT TO SUE WOULD SURVIVE IN THE LEGAL HEIRS WHO WOULD THEN BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.

7. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMITTED E BACK TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR DISPOSAL ON MERIT.

8. IT MUST BE MENTIONED THAT ON THE DEATH OF THE FATHER, AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE FOR BRINGING ON RECORD THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED FATHER. THAT APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND WILL NOT SURVIVE.

9. THE APPEAL STANDS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.