DR. MANJULA ROHATGI Vs. MONIKA PANKAJ BHATTAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petition No. 236 of 2022 has been filed by Dr. Manjula Rohtagi and 'Shonali' Rohatgi Nursing Home against the Order 23/2/2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Circuit Bench, Nagpur Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. CC/17/93, whereby the State Commission by following its Order passed on 22/2/2022 in another case, has held that the learned Advocate Dr. G.N. Shenoy shall not appear in this case since he had been a Member of District Commission Sub-Urban Mumbai, whereas Revision Petition No. 237 of 2022 has been filed by Dr. Manoj Dayalal Singrakhia and Shanta Spine Institute against Dinesh Manikrao Mane and Imaging Point, against the Order dtd. 22/2/2022 passed by the State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. CC/13/60, whereby the State Commission had directed that Advocate Dr. Gopinath Shenoy, shall not appear in this matter henceforth and also shall not appear and practice before any of the Consumer Commissions in the State of Maharashtra from date of this Order, i.e., today 22/2/2022 and a copy of the Order was directed to be sent to all the Consumer Commission in the State of Maharashtra for compliance.

(2.) In both these Revision Petitions the question in issue is as to whether the State Commission was justified in directing that Dr. G.N. Shenoy shall not appear in those matters henceforth and shall not appear and practice before any Consumer Commissions in the State of Maharashtra. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the Order dtd. 22/2/2022 passed by the State Commission is reproduced below:-

(3.) I have heard Dr. G.N. Shenoy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, perused the impugned Orders passed by the State Commission as also the grounds taken in the Memo of Revision Petitions and the documents filed alongwith it.