State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Parmod Jain Hospital (Vimal ... vs Swaran Singh on 24 May, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.19 of 2013
Date of institution : 02.04.2013
Date of decision : 24.05.2013
Dr. Parmod Jain Hospital (Vimal Hospital), Near Govt. High School,
(Boys), Barnala through Dr. Parmod Jain.
.......Petitioner- OP No.1
Versus
1. Swaran Singh father of Manpreet Singh, H.No.B-XIII-1318,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Near Nanaksar Gurudwara,
Barnala.
......Respondent- Complainant
2. Mittal Nursing Home, Gurudwara Ramsar Sahib Road,
Dhanaula, District Barnala through Dr. P.C. Mittal.
3. Civil Hospital, Barnala through Medical Superintendent.
4. New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Mansa
through its Branch Manager.
......Respondents-OP No.2 to 4
Revision Petition against the order dated
19.03.2013 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Revision Petition No.19 of 2013. 2 Present:-
For the petitioner : Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Shri Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate. For respondents No.2-4: Shri, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This revision petition filed by the petitioner/opposite party No.1 is directed against the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (in short "District Forum"), vide which he was directed to appear in the Forum to face cross-examination by the counsel for Swaran Singh, respondent No.1/complainant. The facts, giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition, are that in the complaint filed by the complainant an application was filed by the complainant for the cross-examination of opposite party No.1. That application was decided by the District Forum, vide order dated 20.9.2012 and was dismissed on the ground that the same had been filed to delay the proceedings and to defeat the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") as there is no specific provision therein for the cross- examination of the parties and cross-examination of the parties is to be allowed only where some ambiguity arises and some clarification is sought. Against that order the complainant filed Revision Petition No.67 of 2012 before this Commission, which was decided, vide order dated 21.12.2012. While allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order it was directed by this Commission that the complainant shall file the interrogatories and reply thereto shall be Revision Petition No.19 of 2013. 3 given by opposite party No.1. Accordingly the complainant filed 37 interrogatories and answers thereto on affidavit was submitted by opposite party No.1. While considering the answers given to the interrogatories the District Forum came to the conclusion that exact position was not cleared and that opposite party No.1 be allowed to be cross-examined by the counsel for the complainant and that such a cross-examination was necessary to come to the right conclusion. Feeling aggrieved by that order the present revision petition has been filed by opposite party No.1.
2. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for opposite party No.1 that each and every interrogatory was duly answered by opposite party No.1 and it cannot be said that clarification is required regarding any such answer. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum for the cross-examination of opposite party No.1 cannot be sustained.
4. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant wanted to cross-examine opposite party No.1 after he proved on record his affidavit but his request was disallowed and this Commission permitted the filing of interrogatories by the complainant and issued a direction to opposite party No.1 to answer those interrogatories on oath. Answers given to some of the interrogatories are vague and those require clarification. Some of the answers given by opposite party No.1 suggest that he has tried to evade a particular interrogatory and is trying to conceal the Revision Petition No.19 of 2013. 4 true facts. In these circumstances, the order passed by the District Forum cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality. He has drawn our attention, in support of his submissions, to the answers given by opposite party no.1 to a number of interrogatories.
5. Having gone through the interrogatories and the answers given on oath by opposite party No.1, we do agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant. For example, vide interrogatory No.12 opposite party No.1 was asked to admit that he had not disclosed the radiologist and the diagnostic laboratory from where the diagnostic tests were got done. No doubt, opposite party No.1 answered that interrogatory in the negative but did not disclose the names of the radiologist and the diagnostic centre. Similarly in answer to interrogatory No.18, which was regarding the contents of Annexure R-1/Ex.C-12 and Ex.R-5 and that Ex.R-5 was not the true translation of the said annexure, he answered in the negative but the explanation given in support of the answer is not regarding the documents itself. Even the answers to some other interrogatories suggest that either incomplete reply has been given or evasive reply has been given. In order to make the matter clear it is necessary that opposite party No.1 be cross-examined before the District Forum itself and the District Forum correctly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by making an order to that effect. We fail to understand as to how opposite party No.1 has been prejudiced by this order when it is mentioned at the end thereof that the cross-examination shall be Revision Petition No.19 of 2013. 5 confined only to the questions mentioned in the interrogatories. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
May 24, 2013 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER