Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
Anamika Dixit – Petitioner
versus
Ankit Jain and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.2760 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 05/07/2018 in Appeal No. 63/2018 of the State Commission Uttaranchal)
Decided on 26.9.2023

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manohar Pratap and Mr. Salaj Kumar Rai, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Gaurav VIG, Advocate for R-1 and 2, Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate for R-3

IMPORTANT POINT
National Commission - The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] - Services – Medical Negligence – Findings of Negligence – Confirmed - In the present case, both the fora below have come to a concurrent finding of negligence on the part of Petitioner herein and given a well-reasoned order - No new law points have been raised – Also, the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity – On facts, Petition dismissed. [Paras 5 to 13].
Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 05.07.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.63 of 2018 in which order dated 27.03.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 19 of 2014 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the State Commission in FA/63/2018 and dismissing the CC No. 19/2014 by setting aside the order dated 23.07.2018.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Doctor) was Appellant and Respondents No. 1 & 2 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Respondents No.1 & 2 and Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter also referred to as Insurance Company) was Respondent No.3 in the said FA/2760/2018 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP-1 and Respondents-1 & 2 were Complainants and Respondent No. 3 was OP-2 before the District Forum in the CC No. 19/2014.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 23.10.2018. Petitioner filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 12.04.2023 and written arguments were filed by the Respondents-1 & 2 on 21.04.2023. Counsel for Respondent No. 3 sought exemption from filing her short synopsis on 25.04.2023 on the ground that she is only a proforma party.

4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:—

(i) The Petitioner is a Radiologist having MBBS and DMRD (Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis) and is running her radiology hospital in name of “Ahad Diagnostic Centre’ at Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. On 01.03.2013, the Petitioner conducted an ultrasound test of Ms. Anchal Jain- Respondent No.2, who was in 19th week of her pregnancy. The report was prepared and handed over to Respondent No. 2 as per the image reflected in the ultrasound machine as well as in the film developed showing single live foetus present in uterus in healthy condition.

(ii) On 25.04.2013, the Respondent No.2 went to another doctor who advised fresh ultrasound. The fresh ultrasound was done in Urmila Nursing Home by Dr. Rajeev Chauhan, who gave report that there are twin live foetuses in the uterus of Respondent No.2. On 27.06.2013, Respondent No.2 gave birth to twin female children in Joshi Hospital, Kashipur.

(iii) On 26.08.2013, Respondent No.1 (husband of Respondent No.2) sent Legal Notice to the Petitioner claiming Rs.15 Lakhs as compensation for wrong report of ultrasound of his wife.

(iv) On 05.03.2014, Respondents -1 & 2 (complainants) filed complaint before the District Forum.

5. Vide Order dated 27.03.2018 in the CC No.19 of 2014, the District Forum accepted the complaint against Dr. Anamika Dixit (R-1 before the District Forum) and directed to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing complaint i.e. 05.03.2014 till actual date of payment to the complainants for mental and physical loss. Respondent-1 was also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation costs to the complainants.

6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 27.03.2018 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 05.07.2018 in FA No. 63/2018 dismissed the Appeal.

7. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 05.07.2018 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:—

(i) the State Commission has committed grave error in law as well as fact by dismissing the Appeal of the Petitioner in such a casual manner. The State Commission failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U. Manjunath Rao Vs. U. Chandrashe-khar & Anr. 2017 (15) SCC 309, it was held that “Thus, in the first ap