MOHAMED ABBAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dtd. 7/12/2018 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, C/B at Madurai ('the State Commission') in R.P. No.07/2016 arising out of the order dtd. 28/3/2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirappalli ('the District Forum') in C.M.P. No.22/2014 in C.M.P. No.309/2007 in C.C. No.179/2005.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/Complainant are that he filed Consumer Complaint No. 179/2005 against Railway authorities before the District Forum, in 2005. The case is still pending. At the time of filing the complaint, the complainant, aged 45, was working as a Laboratory Superintendent Grade-I in Railway Hospital, Trichy. He suffered from a skin disease and sought treatment from OP-4 on 2/8/2000. A controversy arose with the medical officer and higher Railway officials, leading to his referral to various medical officers and a Medical Board to ascertain his fitness for service. The complainant resumed duty on 3/2/2003 after being placed on the sick list for certain periods. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench (O.A.No.162/2005), seeking to quash an order dtd. 28/1/2004 by OP-3 and requesting pay and allowances for periods from 25/8/2000 to 9/8/2001 and 10/5/2002 to 2/2/2003. CAT dismissed the O.A., stating that the complainant had not made a case for interference. In 2005, the complainant filed C.C. No.179/2005 before the District Forum for same relief against Railway authorities. During the pendency of the case, he filed an application CMP No. 309/2007 to call the OPs to produce medical records. This was dismissed by the District Forum. He filed Revision Petition No.13/2009 before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the petition, confirming the District Forum's order and holding the requested documents as confidential. The complainant approached the NCDRC for condoning the delay in filing the Revision Petition No.115/2011. This was dismissed on 8/3/2011 due to insufficient grounds for the delay of 119 days. This Commission also decided the case on merits, confirming the findings of the District Forum and the State Commission.

(3.) The complainant filed another application being CMP No.22/2014 before the District Forum for the production of medical records. The OPs filed an application being CMP No.59/2015 to set aside the ex parte order passed against them. Both applications were heard together. The District Forum, vide Order dtd. 28/3/2016, dismissed the complainant's application being C.M.P.No.22/2014 stating that under Sec. 22(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it had no power to review its own order and allowed the OPs application being C.M.P.No.59/2015 setting aside the ex parte order. Against the same, he filed a Revision Petition No.07/2016 and the State Commission, vide Order dtd. 7/12/2018, dismissed the R.P. No.07/2016 with the following observations: