IMPORTANT POINT
Medical negligence – Loss of vision after botched eye surgery – Compensation has to be paid to victim of such negligence.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of these appeals which arise out of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are noted hereinbelow:-

The appellant-complainant P.C. Jain, claims to have lost vision in his left eye due to the medical negligence committed the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh in a surgical procedure whereupon he instituted a Consumer Complaint No. 115 of 2005 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad(hereinafter being referred to as “DCDRC”). Vide order dated 4th April, 2008, the DCDRC, Faridabad allowed the complaint of the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain and granted him compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 Lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till the date of realization, holding the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh guilty of medical negligence in treatment of the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain.

3. The respondent Dr. R.P. Singh, challenged the order dated 4th April, 2008 of the DCDRC, Faridabad by way of filing First Appeal No. 1493 of 2008 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana(hereinafter being referred to as “SCDRC”) which was allowed vide order dated 23rd May, 2011 observing that since the appellant-complainant P.C. Jain was operated at New Delhi, the DCDRC, Faridabad had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and direct that the amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs be refunded to the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh.

4. The appellant-complainant P.C. Jain challenged the order dated 23rd May, 2011 passed by the SCDRC by filing a revision before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(hereinafter being referred to as the “NCDRC”), which came to be allowed by order dated 29th July, 2016 and the matter was remanded back to SCDRC for fresh decision on merits.

5. The SCDRC, vide order dated 6th July, 2017 again allowed the appeal filed by respondent Dr. R.P. Singh and dismissed the Complaint No. 115 of 2005.

6. The appellant-complainant P.C. Jain challenged the order dated 6th July, 2017 passed by the SCDRC by filing fresh Revision Petition No. 3446 of 2017 before the NCDRC which accepted the same vide order dated 18th May, 2022. The judgment of SCDRC was reversed and it was held that the compensation awarded by the DCDRC to appellant-complainant P.C. Jain to the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs was just and proper. However, the interest @ 12% was held to be excessive and accordingly, the same was reduced to 6%. The order passed by SCDRC was set aside.

7. The respondent Dr. R.P. Singh filed a review petition seeking clarification of the order dated 18th May, 2022. The said review application was taken on board and allowed ex-parte vide order dated 22nd July, 2022 accepting the unilateral version of respondent Dr. R.P. Singh that he had deposited an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs on 5th September, 2008 before the SCDRC and thereafter, vide order dated 23rd May, 2011, the deposited amount was released in favour of the appellant-complainant. A clarificatory order dated 22nd July, 2022 was accordingly issued observing that the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh was liable to pay interest from the date of filing of the complaint upto 5th September, 2008 only.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant- complainant preferred a review application No. 207 of 2022, before the NCDRC, objecting to the ex-parte order dated 22nd July, 2022. However, the said review application was rejected by NCDRC vide order dated 26th September, 2022. The appellant-complainant P.C. Jain has assailed these three orders dated 18th May, 2022, 22nd July, 2022 and 26th September, 2022 in Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 683-685 of 2023 whereas the respondent Dr. R.P. Singh has preferred Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos.13511-13512 of 2023 challenging the orders dated 18th May, 2022 and 22nd July, 2022 passed by NCDRC.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

10. It is rele