DR. BHARAT J. PATEL Vs. SURESHBHAI N. PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01.09.2015, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in CMA No. 736/2015 in FA No. 980/2013 "Dr. Bharat J. Patel Vs. Sureshbhai N. Parik", vide which, the said application was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the consumer complaint No. 699/2002 was filed by the Consumer Education and Research Society and Ors. against the present petitioner/Opposite Party (OP) Dr. Bharat J. Patel, alleging medical negligence on their part, during surgery for total knee replacement upon the respondent No. 3. The complainants sought direction for payment of compensation of 89,686/- along with interest @12% p.a. and a compensation of 3 lakh for mental harassment etc. and 5,000.00 as the litigation cost. The District Forum vide their order dated 29.11.2012, dismissed the said complaint, saying that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctors. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainants filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission passed their order on 30.04.2015, vide which, they partly allowed the appeal and directed the OPs to pay a compensation of 2 lakh along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till its payment and 5,000.00 as cost of litigation. While passing this order, the State Commission observed that the respondents were served in the case, but since they were not present, they were proceeded against ex-parte. Alleging that none of the submissions/contentions were considered by the State Commission, the petitioner/OP filed CMA No. 736/2015 before the State Commission. However, the said application was dismissed by the President of the State Commission. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the OPs are before us by way of the present revision petition.

(3.) During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the main order passed by the State Commission on 30.04.2015, it was recorded as follows:-