MAHIPAL S SACHDEV Vs. JAGDISH CHANDRA KUNDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint was filed before the State Commission, Delhi by the Respondent claiming compensation of Rs. 19,88,000 with 24% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment of the said amount. The pleadings of the parties were completed and interrogatories filed were answered. On 13.10.2005, the matter was listed for final disposal on 11.5.2006. The matter came up for arguments on 11.5.2006, 20.7.2006, 7.9.2006 and 10.10.2006. Arguments were partly heard on 7.9.2006. On 10.10.2006, it was ordered by the State Commission that controversy can be resolved by directing Head of Department for Ophthalmology of AIIMS to examine the complainant with regard to his left eye vision as early as possible and positively prior to the date fixed in the matter and send the report in a sealed cover. The matter was listed on 23.11.2006. On 23.11.2006, an application was filed duly signed by the complainant for withdrawal of the complaint under Order 23 Rules 1 and 3, CPC. Along with the application affidavit of Respondent/Complainant as also of the petitioner was filed. On this application an order was passed by the State Commission on 23.11.2006 itself allowing the withdrawal application as also dismissal of the complaint as withdrawn.

(2.) The petitioner has sent letter dated 27.10.2010 to this Commission stating that though complaint had been allowed to be withdrawn, yet, the petitioner was shocked while carrying out a random search on website on Google.com wherein an alleged order dated 25.4.2006 purportedly shown to have been passed by the State Commission is being displayed. It is further stated that the said order dated 25.4.2006 has been uploaded on the official website of the State Commission therein projecting that the said order dated 25.4.2006 has been passed in the complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant. In the said order the OP including the petitioner has been held liable to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 25,000 as also cost of Rs. 5,000 on account of being held guilty for limited deficiency in not administering the required post-operative injection to the complainant. It is further stated that no such order was ever passed in the said proceedings by the State Commission against the OP including the petitioner. According to the petitioner, some mischief has been played by someone in the State Commission in order to harm the reputation of the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, sought removal of the alleged order dated 25.4.2006 purported to have been passed in Complaint bearing number CC 288 of 1999 from the official or any other website of the State Commission as also an inquiry into the matter and to punish persons responsible for the mischief.

(3.) The records of the said complaint CC No. 282 of 1999 were called from the State Commission. The State Commission was also asked to send records of CC No. 288 of 1999 in which the alleged order dated 25.4.2006 is said to have been passed. However, the State Commission informed that the file of CC No. 288 of 1999 is not traceable.