M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

RP No.138 / 2019.

Madan Makhija,

Katna (M.P.)                                                                          …. PETITIONER.

                        Versus

Dr. Rajesh Batra & Ors.                                                       …. RESPONDENTS.

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

Date of                                          O R D E R                                                   

Order                                                                                                                 

23.12.2019                Shri Manish Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                    Heard.

                        2.         This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.8.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Katni (for short the “Forum”) in CC No.1/2018 whereby the Forum has dismissed the application filed by the appellant / complainant seeking production of certificate from the respondent no.1 in regard to his eligibility to conduct gynaic surgery by holding that the complainant cannot compel the opposite party no.1 to produce the document about eligibility to conduct gynaic surgery.

• 2 -

                        3.         We have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we have also gone through the impugned order.

                        4.         It appears the plea of the complainant was that first respondent – opposite party is holding the degree of Master of Surgeon in General Surgery and is not entitled to conduct gynaic surgery.  In view of the aforesaid pleadings it is for the parties to lead appropriate evidence in regard to their respective claim and the petitioner / complainant cannot ask the Forum to compel the first respondent – opposite party no.1 to produce certificate regarding he being qualified for conducting surgery relating to gynae.  It is always open for the Forum to appreciate the evidence as may be led by the parties and it is empowered to draw adverse inference, if circumstances require.

                        5.         Observing the aforesaid, we find no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 

6.         The revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

                          (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)                                               (S.S. Bansal)      

           ^{PRESIDENT                                                                                        MEMBER}   

Phadke