Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Rajinder Singh vs Dr. Baljeet Singh on 26 April, 2017

                                                     2nd Additional Bench

   STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
                                    PUNJAB



                          Revision Petition No.41 of 2016


                                             Date of institution: 05.12.2016
                                             Date of Decision: 26.04.2017


Rajinder Singh S/o S. Santokh Singh, Father of Minor Gurpreet singh, R/o
10651/40, Gali No.1, Kot Atma Ram, Sultanwind road, Amritsar.
                                                                   Petitioner


                                Versus


  1. Dr. Baljit Singh
  2. Dr. Shaleen Sareen
  3. Dr. Vikas Kakkar,
     All C/o Sri Guru Ram Das Charitable Hospital, A unit of Sri Guru
     Ram Das institute of Medical Sciences & Reserch, Vallah, Amritsar
     through medical Superintendent.
  4. Sri Guru Ram Das Charitable Hospital, A unit of Sri Guru Ram Das
     Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Vallah, Amritsar, through
     its Medical Superintendent.


                                                              Respondents
                          Revision Petition against the order dated
                          16.8.2016 passed by the District Consumer
                          Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President.
        Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member


Present:-


     For the Petitioner         :      Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate
 Revision Petition No.41 of 2016                                           2



      For Respondent No.1         :     Sh. Sahil Khunger, Advocate
      For Respondents No.2 to 4:        Sh. Salinder Nagpal, Advocate


Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member



                                      ORDER

The petitioner/complainant (hereinafter referred as Complainant) has filed the present Revision Petition against the order dated 16.8.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) vide which the application for filing interrogatories was declined.

2. Complaint No.133 of 2014 was filed by the complainant against respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops). During the pendency of the complaint, complainant moved an application for cross-examination of the witnesses of the Ops vide order dated 7.6.2016, application was allowed for cross-examination of Dr. Baljit Singh, Dr. Shaleen Sareen and Dr. Vikas Kakkar by way of interrogatories and accordingly, the counsel for the complainant was directed to file the interrogatories within one week after that the case was adjourned to 15.7.2016, 29.7.2016 and then to 16.8.2016. On 16.8.2016 no interrogatories were filed and impugned order was passed.

3. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

4. It has been argued by the counsel for the complainant that it is a case of medical negligence and number of clarification are required to be taken from the witnesses of the Ops. Therefore, Revision Petition No.41 of 2016 3 service of interrogatories was necessary and the order passed by the District Forum be set-aside. In the interest of justice and that the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to wrong treatment given to his minor son by the Ops. Whereas, the Revision Petition was opposed by the counsel for the Ops stating that sufficient time was given to the complainant for filing the interrogatories but he failed to file the same. Therefore, Revision Petition be dismissed.

5. We have considered the contention as raised by the counsel for the parties. It is the case of medical negligence and cross-examination of the Doctors by way of interrogatories is an important piece of evidence even for the right decision of the case. In case the counsel for the complainant failed to serve interrogatories within the time granted by the District Forum, the party should not suffer for a lapse on the part of his counsel. Otherwise the Ops can be compensated by way of costs. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the interrogatories are required to be filed and answered by witnesses of the Ops. Accordingly, we allow the Revision Petition, subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid in equal share to the Ops.

6. Counsel for the Petitioner has filed joint interrogatories for witnesses of Ops i.e. Dr. Baljit Singh, Dr. Shaleen Sareen and Dr. Vikas Kakkar. Counsel for the complainant is directed to file separate interrogatories for each of the witnesses within a period of 15 days from this date with an advance copy to the counsel for the Ops. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 2.6.2017.

Revision Petition No.41 of 2016 4

7. Copy of the order alongwith record of the District Forum be sent to the District Forum forthwith.

8. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.





                                  (Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal)
                                              President


April 26, 2017                        (Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Rs/-                                      Judicial Member