The court upheld that the failure to file a written response within the stipulated period due to negligence cannot be condoned, adhering strictly to the Consumer Protection Act's timelines.

R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT

The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”), against the Impugned Order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jharkhand at Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Revision Petition No. 06 / 2017. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Revision Petition preferred by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS/Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”), challenging the interim Order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) in CC No. 231/2012 wherein the Application dated 09.01.2016 filed on behalf of the Hospital and its two Doctors, i.e. Opposite Party No.2 & 3 in the Complaint, was dismissed. In the said Application, a prayer was made on behalf of all the Opposite Parties to set aside the Order dated 02.01.2014 debarring the right of the Hospital to file its Written Version and to set aside the Order dated 03.09.2013 proceeding ex-parte against the Opposite Party No.2 & 3.

Since, the question of law involved in this Revision Petition is, “as to whether the District Forum was justified or not in forfeiting the right of the Hospital to file its written version and proceeding ex-parte against the two Doctors, we would not like to go into the merit of the case.

The relevant facts leading to filing of the present Revision Petition are that the Complainant/Respondent filed Complaint Case No. 231/2012 before the District Forum alleging medical negligence on the part of the Hospital and its two Doctors in treatment of his eyes. On 13.06.2013, the Hospital put in appearance before the District Forum through its Counsel and the vakalatnama was also filed.However, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 did not appear before the District Forum despite service of notice and accordingly, they were proceeded exparte by the District Forum vide Order, dated 03.09.2013. Despite putting appearance on 13.06.2013, the Hospital did not chose to file its Written Version for the reasons best known to them and the District Forum, vide Order dated 02.01.2014, debarred them from filing Written Version. They also did not file any evidence on Oath despite sufficient opportunity having been granted by the District Forum.Consequently, the District Forum, vide Order dated 22.05.2014, closed the right of Hospital to file its evidence on Oath. Nevertheless, the Hospital did not bother to file its Written Notes of Arguments despite liberty being granted by the District Forum. Ultimately, the case was fixed for argument.The District Forum heard the arguments, in part, on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent on 09.09.2015. The Hospital moved an Application dated 09.01.2016 before the District Forum for setting aside the aforesaid Orders dated 02.01.2014 and 03.09.2013. Vide Order dated 02.03.2017, the District Forum rejected the prayer and dismissed the Application dated 09.01.2016 with the following observations:-

“From a perusal of the case record, it will appear that initially OP No. 1 appeared on 13.06.2013 but OP No. 2 & 3 did not appear and as such vide Order dated 03.09.2013, the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against OP Nos. 2 & 3. Case record further shows that OP No. 1 did not file any written version and as such he was debarred from filing written version on 02.01.2014. The present prayer for setting aside Order dated 02.01.2014 can be taken to be a prayer for recall of orders dated 02.01.2014 and 03.09.2013. We find that OP No. 1 appeared on 13.06.13 and was debarred from filing written version on 02.01.2014. Thereafter the Complainant filed his evidence on Oath and notes of written arguments also