STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 18.04.2023 Reserved On : 09.08.2023 Date of decision : 29.09.2023

1. Care Diagnostic Centre, SCO No.22, New Leela Bhawan, Income Tax Office Road, Opp. Kamal Lab., Patiala-147001, through its Proprietor.

2. Dr. (Mrs.) Jyotika Sehgal, MBBS, DNB (Radio Diagnosis), Consultant Radiologist, Care Diagnostic Centre, SCO No.22, New Leela Bhawan, Income Tax Office Road, Opp. Kamal Lab., Patiala-

147001.

3. Muskaan, OBST & GYNAE Centre, Shere-e-Punjab Market, Patiala, through its Proprietor.

4. Dr. Shalini Ahluwalia, M.D. (OBST & GYNAE) Shere-e-Punjab, Market, Patiala trough its Proprietor.

5. Kuber Hospital, SST Nagar, Patiala, through its Proprietor.

6. Dr. Monika, MBBS, MD, Kuber Hospital, SST Nagar, Patiala.

….Petitioners/OPs No.1 to 4, 6 & 7 Versus

1. Richa Joshi aged 31 years wife of Raman Mehal;

2. Raman Mehal aged about 35 years son of Sham Sunder Mehal;

Both residents of House No.5, Village Deelwal, P.O. Punjabi University, Patiala.

….Respondents/Complainants

3. Bindi Nusing Home, # 112, Ajit Nagar, Patiala, through its Proprietor.

….Respondent/OP No.5 Revision Petition under Section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the petitioners : Sh. Munish Kapila, Advocate For respondents No.1 & 2 : Sh. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate.

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT This order of ours shall dispose off Revision Petition No.28 of 2023, Revision Petition No.18 of 2023 and Misc. Application No.205 of 2023 in CC No.77 of 2022, as the similar question of law and facts are involved in all the cases i.e. as to whether the Consumer Commission has power to extend the period beyond the stipulated period of 45 days as prescribed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2019’) to file written version or not?

The facts are being extracted from Revision Petition No.28 of

2023.

Revision Petition No.28 of 2023

2. The petitioners/OPs No.1 to 4, 6 & 7 have approached this Commission by way of filing the present Revision Petition Section 47 (1) (b) of the Act of 2019 for setting aside the impugned order dated

17.02.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala (in short, “the District Commission”) in CC No.159 of 2022, whereby the petitioner/OPs were not allowed to file the written replies beyond the period of 45 days as provided under the Act.

3. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the present Revision Petition, are that respondents No.1 & 2/complainants had filed CC No.159 of 2022 against the OPs on the grounds that there was negligence on their part in not diagnosing the fetal abnormality in the case of their son namely Tejas, who was born on

12.12.2022 in the Hospital OP No.5 i.e. Bindi Nursing Home.

5. The complaint was filed with the prayer for issuance of directions to the OPs to grant compensation to the tune of 50 lac on ₹

account of negligence and carelessness and also for causing physical harassment, mental agony, pain and depression. The prayer was also made to grant litigation expenses to the tune of 20,000/-.

₹

6. Upon issuing notice in the complaint, the OPs engaged their counsel/lawyers to represent them in the case before the District Commission. OPs No.1,2,5 & 6 had also moved an application to accept their written replies but the District Commission instead of allowing them had struck off their defence on the ground that the written r