State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prakash Chandra Waghe vs Dr.Kalpesh Malik & Ors. on 11 August, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/14/727
Instituted on : 21.10.2014
Prakashchandra Waghe,
Address : Block No.4/C,
Cross Street - 1,Sector - 1,
Bhilai, Power House, District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Dr. Kalpesh Malik, Cardiac Surgeon,
Narayan Hridayalaya, M.M.I. Hospital,
Raipur (C.G.)
2. Chief Medical Officer,
Narayana Hridayalaya, M.M.I. Hospital,
Raipur (C.G.)
Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty, Director,
Narayana Hridayalaya.
3. Narayana Hridayalaya Private Limited,
Through : Director,
Headquarter Number 258/A,
Bhumasandra Industrial Area,
Ankel Taal, Bengaluru (Karnataka) .... Respondents
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :-
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellant.
Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, for respondent No.1.
Shri Ashok Trivedi, for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
// 2 //
ORDER
Dated : 11/08/2015 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the interim order dated 17.09.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.285/2013. By the impugned order, the two applications filed by the appellant (complainant) for calling report from Medical Board as well as for cross examination of expert doctor, were rejected by the learned District Forum.
2. The appellant (complainant) filed Complaint Case No.285/2013 before the District Forum against the respondents (OPs) seeking reliefs as mentioned in the complaint. The appellant (complainant) filed two applications before the District Forum i.e. first application for calling expert report from Medical Board through Special Messenger (Process Server) and second application for cross examination of the doctor, who is expert witness.
3. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the appellant (complainant) has argued that the appellant (complainant) filed the consumer complaint against the respondents (OPs) seeking compensation for the medical negligence committed by them and learned District Forum has called expert report from the Medical Board and Medical Board has prepared the expert report, but the // 3 // expert report did not receive by the District Forum yet, therefore, it is appropriate for the District Forum to call said report through Special Messenger (Process Server). He further argued that the doctor of Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai (C.G.), is material witness and his cross examination is essential for proper adjudication of the case, therefore, both the applications filed by the appellant (complainant) deserve to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum be set aside.
4. Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Shri Ahosk Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 & 3 have supported the impugned order passed by the District Forum. They have opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant (complainant).
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum.
6. In the application filed by the appellant (complainant) for calling expert doctor for cross-examination, the appellant (complainant) simply mentioned that the doctor of Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai, who saved life of the appellant (complainant) be called for cross-examination as expert witness, but the appellant (complainant) did not mention the name of the expert doctor. Merely mentioning that the said doctor is expert witness, is not sufficient for calling the // 4 // said doctor for cross examination until and unless particulars are not given by the appellant (complainant). The appellant (complainant) has utterly failed to mention the reason and the name of the doctor in his application.
7. So far as cross-examination of the witness is concerned, the cross-examination of the witness or any party before the District Forum or State Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not a rule, it is only an exception and the appellant (complainant) can very well cross-examine the doctor through questionnaire. The appellant (complainant) can also obtain affidavit of the said doctor, who treated the appellant (complainant) in Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai (C.G.) and can file the same before the District Forum.
8. So far as calling expert report is concerned, it appears that the learned District Forum mentioned in its order dated 29.03.2014 that report of the Medical Board has not been received yet, therefore, directed to issue a letter to the Secretary, Health, Raipur and copy of the same be also sent to the District Hospital, Raipur and Divisional Medical Board, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur. It appears that the District Forum has tried to call report from the Medical Board through concerned higher authorities, therefore, there is no need to call expert report through Special Messenger (Process Server).
// 5 //
9. The impugned order dated 17.09.2014, passed by the learned District Forum, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, hence, does not call for any interference by this Commission.
10. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of the appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (NarendraGupta)
President Member Member
/08/2015 /08/2015 /08/2015