BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED Vs. AMITA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 12.4.2007, this revision petition under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by the contesting opposite parties of Consumer Complaint No. 101 of 2007, Smt. Amita Sharma v. M/s. BHEL and Others, pending disposal before the Consumer Forum, Hardwar.

(2.) IN the aforesaid consumer complaint, allegations of medical negligence were made, apart from the claim that the employer has refused to provide medical facilities to the employee Lt. Col. (Retd.) H.S. Sharma, the husband of the complainant. She had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000, apart from the consequential prayers made in the complaint. On 12.4.2007, complainant moved an application with the prayer that the District Forum be pleased to order BHEL management to restore medical facilities to the husband of the complainant with immediate effect. The complaint itself was filed on the said date, i.e., 12.4.2007 and the District Forum passed an ex parte order as below: "Heard. Issue notice for the date fixed. In the meanwhile, opposite party Nos. 5 and 7 are directed to restore the medical facilities of the complainant."

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the respondents including the complainant despite service. Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order was passed without there being any affidavit on record to support the allegation that BHEL management had refused to provide medical facilities to the husband of the complainant and that in the totality of the circumstances of the case, the District Forum, while passing the impugned order, acted in exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity. Learned Counsel also pointed out to the averment of the objection/written statement in support of the argument that the husband of the complainant was transferred from Haridwar to Tiruchy by the Corporate Office of the BHEL and that there was absolutely no occasion in making a direction that the BHEL management at Hardwar shall provide medical facilities to the complainant's husband at Hardwar. From perusal of the allegations of the complaint, it is not transpired that it was a case of emergency so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer Forum for seeking an ex parte order of the import, as is the case with the impugned order. Instead of passing the impugned order, the proper course available to the District Forum in exercise of its jurisdiction, was to wait for the objections to be filed by the opposite party -BHEL and then to decide on merit as to whether such a direction as made in the impugned order, was really and legally warranted. In the peculiar circumstances of case and the allegations made in the consumer complaint, it is thus obvious that the District Forum acted in exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Commission in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In short, this revision petition succeeds and is to be allowed accordingly.