A second revision petition against a revisional order of the State Commission is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

ORDER

DR. INDER SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58 (1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 19.06.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in Revision Petition (RP) No. 07 of 2023 in which order dated 16.12.2022 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 647 of 2022 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 19.06.2023 of the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Petitioner before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant(s)) were Respondent(s) before the State Commission and Complainant(s) before the District Forum.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 18.08.2023. Parties filed Written Arguments on 24.01.2024 (Petitioner).

4. The Complainant filed Complaint No. CC/647/2022 against the OP Hospital for deficiency in services and medical negligence. Vide docket order dated 16.12.2022, District Commission, set opposite party ex-parte. Order of the District Commission is reproduced below:

“Docket Order Date: 16.12.2022

Complainant No. 1 is present. Despite service of notice received on 31.10.2022. No representation from Opposite party. Hence set-exparte. For Evidence Affidavit of Complainant, call on 05.01.2023.”

5. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 16.12.2022 of District Commission, Petitioner(s) filed a Revision Petition before the State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 19.06.2023 in RP No. 07 of 2023 has dismissed the Revision Petition observing as follows:

“22. The above Docket Order, by which the District Commission set opposite party ex-parte impliedly forfeited the right of filing the written version by the opposite party and the same is in accordance with Section 38 (3) (a) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the binding precedent of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “New India Assurance Company Limited”, case, mentioned supra. As such, we hold that the said Docket Order of the District Commission is legal and sustainable and therefore, we confirm the said Docket Order and consequently this Revision is liable to be dismissed”

6. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2023, the Petitioner filed Revision Petition No. 1861 of 2023 before this Commission.

7. Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 19.06.2023 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i) State Commission erred in not considering that even though the Petitioner herein was served the notice on 31.10.2022, the service of notice was defective. It is submitted that the Petitioner herein only received the Complaint without the annexures whatsoever. In fact, till date the Petitioner has not been served with the complete set of the Complaint along with the annexures.

(ii) State Commission erred in not considering that the nonappearance of the Petitioner before the District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad was neither wilful nor deliberate but was due to bonafide reasons which were beyond the control of the Petitioner herein.

(iii) State Commission erred in not considering that the Petitioner’s rights of giving evidence, final hearing and filing Written Synopsis were taken away vide Docket Order dated 16.12.2022, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

(iv) State Commission erred in not considering that the Consumer Complaint No. 647/2022 is not maintainable on the facts or on the law as there is no locus standi to file the complaint. The Petitioner has a good case on merits and grave prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner if the matter is decided ex parte.

8. Heard learned counsels of both sides. Before taking up the present Rev