IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:30.05.2024 Date of Hearing :06.03.2025 Date of Decision :03.04.2025 REVISION PETITION NO. 27/2024 IN THE MATTER OF VENKATESHWAR HOSPITAL THROUGH MS. GUNJAN SINHA, SECTOR-18A, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075 ….REVISIONIST (Through Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate, Mob.995389611 &

E-Mail: rohitgupta51@gmail.com)

VERSUS MS. USHA SINGH, W/O MR. RAJ KUMAR, PLOT NO.1669, KAMLA PARK, DHARAMPUR, NAJAFGARH, DELHI.

....RESPONDENT CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Rohit Gupta (Mob.9971375660 & Email:

rohitgupta51@gmail.com) and Ms. Garima Raisinghani (Mob.9953589611 & Email: garimaraisingani@gmail.com), counsel for the revisionist.

None for respondent.

PER: HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the Revisionist impugning the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII Sector-20, Dwarka, Delhi-110077 in Consumer Complaint No. 49/2022 titled “Usha Singh vs. Venkateswar Hospital and Ors.’, wherein application to review the order dated 05.08.2022 was dismissed as written statement of the revisionist/ Opposite Party was not filed within the statutory period.

2. Order dated 25.01.2024 has been reproduced as under for reference:

“1. The OP-1 has filed an application under section 40 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Act) to review the order dated 05.08.2022 with the averments that the application is signed, verified and filed by Ms. Gunjan Sinha who is duly authorized to do such other acts, dates and things as may be necessary for the proceedings of instant complaint. The Commission has inadvertently recorded that Counsel for OPs was unable to supply the advance copy of reply to the complainant whereas the advance copy of reply was served in advance to the counsel for the complainant on his email Id i.e. info@nimsatlawyers.com and Commission has closed the right of OP-1 to file the reply. The reply was timely prepared and OP-1 was ready to file on 05.08.2022 but Commission has refused to accept the same as the reply is on behalf of all the Opposite Parties.

2. The paper book supplied to the counsel of OPs was incomplete which is mentioned in the record of the Commission. The OPs were not in possession of the complete paper book so they were unable to file the reply. The period of 45 days does not apply once complete paper book is not supplied so impugned order be reviewed and there is an error apparent face on record. There is wrong application of limitation period. The right to defend is a basic legal right of a party which should not be prejudiced due to inadvertent errors. Moreover, the OPs were diligently following up the matter with the Commission for the dasti copy of the impugned order and even email dated 23.08.2022 was sent to this Commission along with representation. Hence, this application.

3. Ld. Proxy Counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant does not want to file the written reply to the application and oral arguments will be addressed which is apparent from the order sheet dated 09.10.2022.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. Section 40 of the Act says that the Commission can review the order if there is an error apparent on the face of record. In Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. vs Assam Seb (2020) 2 SCC 677 it was held by the lordship that scope of review is limited and petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. The error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of record.

6. In Perry Kansagra vs Smriti Madan Kansagra (2019) 20 SCC 753 it was held by lordship that the review quote does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that rehearing of a matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not