IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Revision – A revision under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and scope for revisional jurisdiction is limited.
(2) NCDRC – the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission.

ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the Order dated 14.07.2017, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 181/2016 vide which the OP appeal was dismissed upholding the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (‘District Forum’) order dated 02.02.2016 in CC No 07/2015.

2. As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 16 days in filing the present Petition. For the reasons mentioned in IA/18698/2017, the same is condoned in the interest of justice.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that she had met with an accident on 29.06.2014 and was treated at OP-1 hospital from 29.06.2014 to 03.07.2014. During the treatment, OP-1 operated her left leg by affixing a shaft/nail/rod in her tibia and charged Rs.25,000/- for the procedure. Despite follow-up visits and medication, she experienced severe pain in her left leg. Upon seeking a second opinion, an X-ray revealed that a larger-than-required rod had been affixed, causing pain and restricted movement. She claimed that OP-1 negligently performed the operation and refused to correct the defect free of cost. She consulted other doctors, underwent second operation to replace the shaft, and incurred Rs.25,000/- as expenses. Tests before the second operation revealed she had contracted Hepatitis C, which she alleged resulted from the use of infected instruments during the initial surgery by OP-1. The complainant is now undergoing costly and painful treatment for Hepatitis C, requiring weekly injections and frequent travel to Ludhiana. She alleged medical negligence and sought compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental harassment, Rs.50,000/- as litigation costs, a refund of Rs.1,80,000/- for incurred medical expenses, and Rs.3,00,000/- for future medical treatment, with interest at 18% per annum until realization.

5. In the written statement OP-1 asserted that the complainant had not approached the Forum with clean hands and, therefore, not entitled to any relief. She suppressed material facts, disqualifying her from claiming any claim. OP-1 contended that intricate questions of law and fact were involved, necessitating the matter’s referral to a civil court. Consumer fora lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. They denied any negligence, as alleged, and prayed for complaint dismissal. On merits, OP-1 admitted her admission to its hospital and subsequent surgery but denied other allegations as being without merit. She was discharged on 03.07.2014 in satisfactory condition, with a signed discharge note confirming satisfaction. Despite follow-up advice, she returned only on 18.07.2014, reporting pelvic pain but no leg discomfort. Allegations of pain from a larger shaft and use of infected instruments were denied, and it was asserted that standard sterilization methods were adhered to. Regarding infection of Hepatitis C, OP-1 noted that the tests at admission were negative, suggesting that the infection was contracted later or during an incubation period.

6. OP-2 reiterated that her allegations were unfounded and prayed for dismissal. OP-3, the insurance company, filed a separate written statement, raising preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable against it and deserved dismissal. This fora lacked jurisdiction and that the complainant was estopped by her conduct from pursuing the complaint. OP-3 also contended that the matter involved intricate factual questions requiring trial in a civil court. It prayed for dismissal, asserting the complaint was devoid of merit.

7. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 02.02.2016, partly accepted the complaint with the following findings:—

“23. Coming to the allegations which is proved that there is negligence on the part of OP for implanting