State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.M.Vishnuvardhan Reddy S/O.Late ... vs Bathula Buramma W/O.Venkateswara Rao, ... on 10 October, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. R.P.No.41/2011 against I.A.No.55/2011 in C.C.No.5 of 2011, Dist. Forum-II, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. Between: Dr.M.Vishnuvardhan Reddy S/o.late M.Narayan Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ:Professor, O/o.Govt. ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad. Petitioner/ First Opp.party. And: 1. Bathula Buramma W/o.Venkateswara Rao, R/o.H.No.3-396, Military Colony, Katheru, Rajahmundry Rural. Respondent/ Complainant 2. Dr.K.V.S.S.R.K.Sastry, M.S.Consultant, ENT Head and Neck Surgeon Yashoda Hospital, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082. 3. Dr.Nandipati Ramakrishna, M.S.ENT Hospital, And Micro Surgery Center, Near Kotpally Bus Stand by the side of Road cum Rail Bridge, Rajahmundry. Respondents/ Opp.parties 2 and 3. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. C.M.R.Velu. Counsel for the Respondents : Admission Stage QUORUM: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT AND SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE TENTY DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President ) ***** Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed off at the stage of admission.
The first opposite party preferred the revision against the order of the District Forum dismissing the application filed to adjudicate the matter at the preliminary stage on points of limitation, jurisdiction and non-joinder of necessary and proper parties.
The District Forum after considering the various contentions raised in this regard, opined that the complaint was not barred by limitation and that the District Forum has jurisdiction and the complaint was maintainable without impleading any other party and accordingly dismissed the application.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No.1 preferred the revision contending that he is a Government doctor not liable to be prosecuted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in his individual capacity and if at all liable it is the Government that is liable and it was not made a party.
R3 was impleaded in order to confer jurisdiction to the District Forum. No amount or fee was collected at the time when the treatment was given, and therefore, he sought the order of the District Forum be set aside.
Having perused the record, we are of the opinion that instead of going into the merits which may tend to prejudging the issues that are raised in the complaint, at the interlocutory stage, we are of the opinion that the revision petitioner can as well file his written version, taking all these pleas and insist that the matter be disposed in the statutory period fixed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for disposal of the complaint, more so, in view of the fact that the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are summary in nature and provisions of C.P.C., Cr.P.C. and Evidence Act have no application while adjudicating the matter. Unnecessary delay would occasion if truncated orders are passed. It will lead to unnecessary time consuming and multiplication of proceedings However, while dismissing the revision petition, we are of the opinion that a direction could be given to the District Forum to fix time in order to enable the opposite party No.1, revision petitioner to file his written version and on that the District Forum to give opportunity to both parties to lead evidence and dispose of the complaint as per law independently on each of the point, uninfluenced by the order impugned in the revision. In the circumstances, no costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.10-10-2011