IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH... PRESIDENT Revision Petition No.74 of 2024 (Against the Order, dated 07.08.2024, passed in C.M.P. No.33 of 2024 in C.C. No.11/2024, on the file of the DCDRC, Ariyalur)

Orders pronounced on: 20.01.2025 Apollo Hospital, Chennai Bypass Road, Ariyamangalam Area, Old Palpannai, Trichy Taluk & District – 620 010.

… Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party.

vs.

S. Senthilkumar, Rep. by Mr. A. Singaravelu, No.136, Golden City, Kurumbachavadi, Ameenabath, Ariyalur Taluk & District, PIN – 621 713. … Respondent/Complainant.

For Rev. Petitioner : M/s. Maimoona Badsha.

For Respondent : Notice served.

This Revision Petition came up for final hearing on

09.12.2024 and, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Commission passes the following:-

ORDER

R.Subbiah, J. (President)

The respondent herein filed the main case/C.C.No.11 of 2024 before the DCDRC – Ariyalur on the main allegation that his wife, who was admitted in the OP Hospital to undergo Hysterectomy, had died due to medical negligence on part of the Hospital at the pre- procedure stage and, during the pendency of the complaint, he took out CMP No.33 of 2024, seeking the District Commission to direct the OP for production of a list of documents as mentioned therein and, by its Order, dated 07.08.2024, the lower Commission has allowed the CMP and, challenging the said order, the present Revision Petition is preferred by the Hospital.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner primarily submits that actually, they have already undertaken the exercise of compiling all the documents as sought for by the complainant in the Miscellaneous Petition, however, owing to practical difficulties in view of technical constraints, it is really impossible for them to comply with the direction issued in the impugned order for furnishing the CCTV footage connected to the period between 15.12.2023 and 18.12.2023. It is elaborated that the Hospital has a limited data retention policy whereunder the CCTV footage is automatically deleted upon overwriting, after a period of 45 days. In the present instance, the data sought for had already been overwritten and hence, the particular direction is rendered beyond compliance; as such, the doctrine underlined by the legal maxims “lex con cogit ad impossibilia – Law does not expect a party to do the impossible’ & “impotentia excusat legem – inability excuses from the law” is well attracted. By referring to a catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court including the one reported in 2000 (4) SCC 342 (Mohd. Gazi v. State of MP) wherein the doctrine of impossibility is spelt out rather in a high pitch by holding that law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform; it is pleaded to re-visit the impugned order.

3. Considered the submissions and perused the materials available on record.

4. Now, the Revision Petitioner has made it clear even in their written arguments that, in line with the direction issued by the District Commission in the CMP, compliance of the direction to furnish the documents under columns- (b) to (f) would be effected shortly, however, their only grievance is against the direction connected to column-(a) for production of CCTV footage. It is their explanation that, due to the limited storage capacity in the Disc connected to CCTV recording, the data of the relevant period viz., between 15.12.2023 and 18.12.2023, had already been overwritten and hence, it is rendered impossible to furnish the data that is not available at all. Considering the explanation, we are of the view that, since it is not feasible to retrieve the data that had already been overwritten, the Hospital Authorities cannot be expected to furnish a thing that is not at all available inside their domain. This is a case where the doctr