IMPORTANT POINT
Affidavits of experts including doctors can be taken as evidence.

M.B. Shah, J.—Miscellaneous Petition No.53 of 2000 was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “National Commission”), New Delhi in Original Petition No.252 of 1993 by the appellants - doctors praying that complaint filed for alleged medical negligence be either dismissed as according to them complicated questions of law and facts arise which can best be decided by the Civil Court or in the alternative the proceeding be stayed during the pendency of criminal prosecution pending against them in criminal court at Mumbai. That application was rejected by the Commission. Hence, this appeal.

2. In the present case, complainant respondent filed Original Petition before the National Commission on 26.8.1993 alleging that his son aged 21 years was admitted to the Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai on 4.8.1992 for operation of slip disc as he was suffering from backache. It was stated that before that, he had returned from USA in the month of June, 1992 after obtaining degree in Business Management. He died on 29th August, 1992 in the hospital itself. For this, he attributed medical negligence. Before filing complaint before the National Commission, the complainant had also filed criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A/201 and 203 of Indian Penal Code. That prosecution is also pending. The Commission rejected the application by holding that there is no universal rule of law that during the pendency of criminal proceedings, civil proceedings must invariably be stayed.

3. The Commission also observed that there was unexplained delay in moving such application at this stage and, therefore, case requires to be decided at the earliest.

4. In this appeal, the Court issued notice on 7th December, 2001 and thereafter on 28th January, 2002 passed the following order:

“It is contended by Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. R.F. Nariman, the learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenors that some guidelines will have to be laid down which are more precise in nature with regard to the type of cases which the Consumer Forum will not entertain, keeping in mind the decision of this Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shanta [(1995) 6 SCC 651] in paragraph 37. List after six weeks on a non-miscellaneous day before a Bench of Three Judges. In the meantime, there will be no stay of proceedings.”

5. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nariman first submitted that considering - (a) the inordinate delay in disposal of the complaint, (b) complicated question of law and facts involved in this case depending upon medical experts opinion summary procedure is not proper remedy for deciding such issues, hence complainant should be directed to approach the Civil Court.

6. Reasons for delay as submitted by the Learned Counsel for the parties:

a) Delay in making appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Forum or Commission including National Commission;

b) Not providing adequate infrastructure;

c) Delay because of heavy workload and there is only one Bench of the National Commission or the State Commissions for deciding complaints;

d) Delay in procedure;

7. Before dealing with reasons for delay, the first question which requires consideration is whether delay in disposal of cases by the Consumer Forum or Commission would be a ground for directing the complainant to approach Civil Court?

8. In the present case, there is inordinate delay of about nine years in disposal of complaint. However, if this contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted, apart from the fact that it would be unjust, the whole purpose and object of enacting the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’) would be frustrated. One of the main objects of the Act is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and for that a quasi-judicial machinery is sought t