Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President—This appeal has been preferred by Poona Medical Foundation which is running a hospital at Poona by name, Ruby Hall Clinic. Respondent No. 1 who was the Complainant in this case before the State Commission, Maharashtra, was admitted into the said hospital under the Central Government Health Scheme for treatment of back pain. Ultimately, after investigation, it was suspected to be a case of deodunal ulcer and the Respondent was surgically operated on in the hospital on 19.6.1987. On opening his abdomen it was found by the surgeon that the complainant had an inflamed appendix and since that was likely to endanger his life, the said appendix was removed. After recovery, the Respondent was discharged from the Hospital on 27.7.1987. More than three years thereafter he preferred a complaint before the State Commission, Maharashtra, alleging that the treatment given to him in the appellant’s Hospital was vitiated by negligence of various kinds and hence there was deficiency in service for which he should be awarded compensation. A further ground of grievance was also put forward by him that he had not been given all the medical papers of the Hospital in spite of a request having been made by him and because of this he could not be effectively treated in some other hospitals to which he had subsequently gone for treatment.

2. The State Commission after considering the matter in detail held that the Complaints made by the Respondent regarding the alleged negligence of the Opposite Party in performing the operation and in administering treatment to him at the Hospital, was clearly time barred inasmuch as the operation was performed on 19.6.1987 and the complainant was discharged from the Hospital on 27.7.1987 whereas the complaint petition was filed before the State Commission only on 27.11.1990. In spite of having come to the conclusion that the complaint petition filed on the basis of deficiency in medical service rendered by the Hospital was time barred, the State Commission has proceeded to award to the Complainant a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant herein in not having supplied to the complainant “the necessary papers of his treatment despite the letter dated 15.10.1987”. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the said award of compensation made against it by the State Commission.

3. The Complainant has purported a memorandum of cross-objections challenging the finding of the State Commission that the complaint petition in so far as it sought to recover compensation for negligence in administering the treatment to him at the hospital was time barred. The Consumer Protection Act and the Rules framed there under do not provide for or envisage the filing of any memorandum of cross-objections and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code enabling the filing of crossobjections have not been made applicable to consumer forums. Hence, this Commission has consistently taken the view that the respondent in an appeal filed under the C.P. Act is not entitled to file any cross objections. The memorandum of cross objections will, therefore, stand rejected.

4. We find that there is merit in the challenge raised by the appellant against the award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on the ground that failure on the part of the appellant to supply to the Complainant copies of the hospital records pertaining to the surgical operation performed on the complainant constitutes “negligence”. There can be no question of negligence by reason of such failure to supply the papers unless there was a legal duty cast on the Hospital to furnish such documents to a patient. The appellant Hospital had duly given to the Complainant at the time of his discharge, the discharge card and slip and also a case sheet wherein the particulars of the diagnosis and the treatment administered to him had bee