SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Honble Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President &
Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Member
DARSHAN SINGH BASRA—Petitioner
versus
DR. JASBIR SINGH & ORS.—Respondents
Revision Petition No. 11 of 1997—Decided on 13.1.1998

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner: In person.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3:Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 4:Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 13(4)(i) - Application by complainant to summon two doctors - Rejected by Dist. Forum on ground that complainant did not disclose that he failed to secure their affidavits - Impugned order suffered fallacy - Case involved medical negligence to be proved from expert opinion with respect to diagnosis, treatment/surgery conducted by opp. parties - Fora could be requested to summon such expert. (Para 2)

       Result: Revision allowed.

ORDER

Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—In this revision petition filed by the complainant challenge is to order passed by District Forum, Ludhiana dated June 11, 1997 where by application filed by the complainant to summon two doctors namely Dr. Subhash Goyal and Dr. J.D. Vig of P.G.I., was rejected.

2. It is not necessary to give pleadings of the parties in order to decide the question of law arising in this case. Suffice it to say that the complainant filed the complaint against Dr. Jasbir Singh and Dr. V.K. Puri of Shree Raghunath Hospital, Ludhiana claiming Rs. 4 lacs on account of death of his wife Mrs. Paramjit Kaur alleging negligence and deficiency on their part. An application was filed in the complaint for summoning two experts-Dr. Subhash Goyal from Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana and Dr. J.D. Vig, Professor of Surgery, P.G.I., alongwith records of patient from Dayanand Medical College through Record Keeper. This application was rejected vide the impugned order on the ground that in the application it was not stated that complainant had failed to secure their affidavits and in the summary proceedings as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act evidence on affidavits could be led. There is fallacy in the impugned order. In the case of proof of medical negligence, there may be apparent cases of negligence and the present case does not appear to be that. Present case appears to be of second category of cases where negligence is to be proved from expert opinion with respect to diagnosis, treatment/surgery conducted by the opposite parties. May be doctors from other hospital are not willing to give affidavits. It cannot be impediment in securing justice from the For a. Section 13(4) authorises the Fora established under the Consumer Protection Act is to exercise powers which are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath. Nodoubt this Section further provides receipt of evidence on affidavits. In the case of medical negligence, if affidavits have not been forthcoming on the record of such of the expert witnesses, the Fora can be requested to summon such expert witnesses as provided under Section 13(4)(i) of the Act. The District Forum has thus failed to exercise jurisdiction vested therein in not summoning the witnesses as requested by the complainant.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. Order of District Forum is set aside. A direction is given to summon the three witnesses and thus dedde the complaint according to law. It may be observed that the complainant may be handed over dasti summons for getting the service effected with the further direction to pay the fee and expenses of the witnesses directly to them in order to avoid delay in getting their presence. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 5.2.1998. Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum promptly.

Petition allowed.

_





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top