STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 06.01.2022 Date of decision : 13.01.2022 Dr. Anil Kumar Garg C/o Dr. Atma Ram Eye Hospital, Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Mansa.

….Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Versus

1. Basant Kaur (since deceased) wife of Niranjan Singh resident of Village Ralla, Tehsil and District Mansa, through Legal Representative Major Singh son of Sh. Niranjan Singh resident of Village Ralla, Tehsil and District Mansa.

….Respondent/Complainant

2. Dr. Atma Ram Eye Hospital, Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Mansa, through its competent authority.

….Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.2 First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now, “Commission”) Mansa.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, 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 Argued By:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sahil Khunger, Advocate JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT Appellant/opposite party No.1-Dr. Anil Kumar Garg has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission), Mansa (in short, “the District Commission”) in CC No.153 of 2018.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present appeal are that respondent No.1/complainant-Basant Kaur instituted a complaint alleging medical negligence against the appellant/opposite party No.1 and others. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant Basant Kaur expired on 22.11.2019. Thereafter, an application for impleading legal heirs of deceased Basant Kaur was filed on 07.04.2021 by one Major Singh claiming himself to be son of Basant Kaur (since deceased). In the said application, it was mentioned that Basant Kaur left behind her legal heirs namely (i) Kartar Kaur (ii) Angrej Kaur (iii) Balwant Kaur (iv) Surinder Kaur and (v) Major Singh. Reply to that application was also filed. The application for impleading legal heirs of deceased complainant was allowed vide order dated 27.12.2021.

4. Said order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the District Commission, whereby the application for impleading legal heirs of the deceased complainant was allowed, is the subject matter of challenge before this Commission by way of filing the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the daughters of the deceased complainant, who had been impleaded as LRs, are married and they were not dependent upon the deceased complainant. All the four daughters gave their authority letter to Major Singh just to show that they had no interest or connection with the complainant. Learned counsel also submits that nothing has been said in the application about the husband of the complainant, as to whether he was alive or not. At the end, learned counsel submits that the cause of action involved in the complaint had ended with the death of the complainant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in case reported as (Shanti Devi & Ors. v. Dr. Manoj Sharma & Ors.) 2012 (3) CPJ 742.

6. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage of the appeal. We have also perused the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 and other documents available on the file.

7. Facts of the case with regard to filing of the complaint by complainant Basant Kaur, her death on 22.11.2019, moving application for impleading legal heirs of deceased Basant Kaur and order dated 27.12.2021 passed on the said application are not disputed. It is