SIVAKAMI Vs. G V N HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Forum, Tiruchirapalli in CMP 366/2006 in CDOP 158/2005 on its file.

(2.) The facts leading to the revision petition are as under: The revision petitioner/complainant had approached the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 for her thyroid problem. After taking medicine as per the advice of the 3rd opposite party, the petitioner's condition improved. However, third opposite party, without any necessity, advised the petitioner to undergo surgery for removing thyroid gland with the second opposite party. The second opposite party performed the surgery on 6.4.1999 and removed the thyroid gland. The second opposite party, however, negligently had also removed the para-thyroid glands, essential for maintaining the calcium level in the body. Because of the negligent removal of para-thyroid glands, the petitioner suffered acute deficiency of calcium level and she was forced to spend Rs.6,000 per month for her survival by maintaining her calcium level. She was also prevented from doing her daily routine and was practically crippled. Poor calcium level had also affected her vital organs, such as kidney and liver. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed before the District Forum. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 filed their version denying the various averments made in the complaint. The second opposite party had also categorically denied the removal of para-thyroid gland. Originally one Vivek Pathak of Kovai Medical Centre, who treated the petitioner, subsequently was willing to give expert evidence. However, he later on backed out. The other alternative, according to the petitioner, left to her was to establish the negligence of the opposite parties by cross-examining the opposite party who performed the surgery. In those circumstances, a petition for permission to cross-examine the opposite parties was filed before the District Forum. The opposite parties naturally opposed the application contending that they could not be compelled to subject themselves to cross-examination. The District Forum having dismissed the civil miscellaneous petition, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted as follows: The District Forum had dismissed the petition on two grounds, viz. , (1) the District Forum had no powers under Sec.13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to subject the opposite parties to cross-examination, whereas they can only summon them to the Court in the absence of counter proof affidavit, (2) the opposite parties cannot be subject to cross-examination. The Act does not prohibit the Forum from passing such order to meet the ends of justice. The very act is a beneficial legislation and interpreting the provisions strictly would defeat the very object of the Act. The Counsel also relied on the judgments of National Commission in "ii (1996) CPJ 209 (NC)", wherein it has been held that the party insists that he wants to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavit, natural justice requires that permission to cross-examine that witness should be given. In view of that, the District Forum ought to have granted permission and unless the petitioner is permitted, she would be put to great hardship.