SUKUMAR H MEHTA Vs. MUKESH PARIKH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Revision Applications under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are directed against order dated 11.1.2008 rendered in Consumer Case No. 56 of 2006 below application dated 29.11.2007 by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District (Rural), permitting the opponents to cross -examine the complainant if so desired and in that case requiring the opponents to serve interrogatories (questionnaire) in writing and thereafter the complainant to file written reply to the said interrogatories on affidavit before the Forum. The learned Forum also observed that if the complainant wants to cross -examine the opponents, then in that case the complainant shall furnish interrogatories in writing to each of the opponents and the opponent to file reply to the interrogatories in writing on affidavit further observing that permission to cross -examine by each of the parties is on condition that each party will give interrogatories (questionnaire) in writing for the cross -examination of opposite side and the reply to the interrogatories by the other side shall be on affidavit also clarifying that no permission will be granted for oral cross -examination before the Forum.

(2.) IT is suggested from the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the parties and also the impugned order that complaint No. 56 of 2006 came to be field by the complainants alleging medical negligence and thereby deficiency in service on the part of opponent Nos. 1 to 4. It may be seen that original opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are doctors -medical practitioners; opponent No. 2 is medical officer -cum -surgeon whereas opponent No. 4 is the hospital where opponent Nos. 1 to 3 doctors are stated to have treated the patient. It is suggested that on 29.9.2007 opponent Nos. 1 to 7 prayed before the learned Forum in the pending complaint for seeking permission for cross -examination of the complainants; that the learned Forum, on 29.9.2007, passed an order permitting the opponents to cross -examine the complainant as prayed. It is suggested that on the same day i.e. on 29.9.2007 an application came to be filed by the complainant praying that no cross -examination should be permitted and arguments be started to serve the purpose of summary proceedings. The learned District Forum after hearing the parties passed the order on 11.1.2008 as aforestated. It is this order which is prayed to be revised by the original opponent No. 1 by way of Revision Application No. 5 of 2008 and original opponent No. 4 by way of Revision Application No. 6 of 2008.

(3.) IT is submitted by Mr. T.S. Nanavati, learned Advocate for the petitioner, original opponent No. 1 that the order dated 29.11.2007 permitting the cross -examination of the complainants has become final inasmuch as the complainants have not challenged this order by way of Revision Application before the State Commission. In this regard reference has been made to the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further submitted by Mr. Nanavati that by passing the second order on 11.1.2008 requiring the filing of interrogatories, the first order dated 29.11.2007 permitting the cross -examination of the complainants cannot be reviewed and that the second order dated 11.1.2008 tantamounts to reviewing the order dated 29.11.2007 and therefore the order dated 11.1.2008 be revised and set aside. It is submitted by Mr. K.F. Dalal, learned Advocate for the original complainants that as per the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dr. Merchant and Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, 2002 3 CPJ 8 and Con D cor rep. by its Managing Partner v. Smt. Smritikana Ghose and Another,2002 2 CPR 101 (NC), the order that could have been passed would be requiring the parties desirous of cross -examining the other side to file interrogatories on oath and that the learned Forum has passed the order following the Honourable Supreme Court and National Commission judgment and the order does not call for any interference and the petition deserved to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act are required to be disposed of within the stipulated time frame and permitting cross -examination of the parties and witnesses would lengthen the proceedings and frustrate the purpose and object of the consumer law; that the provisions of CPC are not applicable in extenso to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act and therefore the learned Forum is justified in passing order requiring the filing of interrogatories by those desirous of cross examining the other side. It is submitted by Mr. K.M. Bhatt, learned Advocate for opponent Nos. 7 and 8 that the order dated 11.1.2008 is in no manner inconsistent or contrary to the order dated 29.11.2007. Even in the order dated 11.1.2008, cross -examination is permitted by the learned Forum as it is observed that the cross -examination of the expert witness depending on facts of the case could be permitted to clear any complication and for resolving the complicated questions involved. It is further submitted that there is no question of permitting cross -examination of expert witness at this stage since the question pertains to cross -examination of the complainant and therefore the order dated 11.1.2008 does not call for any interference.