State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Sushil Kumar Paul vs Dr. Gouri Shankar Bhattacharjee on 30 January, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Revision Petition No. RP/142/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 08/07/2015 in Case No. CC/467/2013 of District Howrah) 1. Shri Sushil Kumar Paul Deulpara, Ananda Bazar, (Near Nandi Pukur), P.O & P.S - Naihati, Pin - 743 165, Dist - North 24 Pgs. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Dr. Gouri Shankar Bhattacharjee C/o, Fortis Hospital, 730, Anandapur, E.M. Byepass Road, P.S - Tiljala, Kolkata - 700 107. 2. The Medical Superintendent, Fortis Hostipal Ltd. 730, Anandapur, E.M. Byepass Road, P.S - Tiljala, Kolkata - 700 107. 3. The Registrar, West Bengal Medical Council 8, Lyons Range, P.S - Hare Street, Kolkata - 700 017. 4. The Secretary, Medical Council, Pocket 14. Sector - 8, Dwarka, Phase - I, New Delhi - 110 077. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Petitioner: Ms. Sumita Roy Chowdhuryb, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Barun Prasad, Advocate Mr. Sushil Das, Advocate Mr. Biplab Guha, Mr. Saibelendu Bhowmick, Advocate Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya, Advocate Dated : 30 Jan 2017 Final Order / Judgement HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, PRESIDING MEMBER
The Revision Petitions bearing No. RP/142/2015 and RP/156/2015 have been filed by the Complainant in Complaint Case No. 467 of 2013 pending before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, challenging the orders dated 08.07.2015 and 14.08.2015 respectively passed by the said Ld. District Forum.
Both the Revision Petitions revolving round the identical facts, allegations and the parties are being disposed of by this common order.
The brief facts of both the cases are that one Revision Petition bearing No. 89/2014 in connection with the same Complaint Case was filed before this Commission earlier on the ground of not allowing the OP No. 2 to put questionnaire to the Complainant and that the said Revision Petition was disposed of by order dated 19.6.2015 by this Commission allowing liberty to the OP No. 2 to file questionnaire subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- to the Complainant by 8.7.2015 and directing the Ld. District Forum to accept the questionnaire upon payment of the said cost.
The order dated 08.07.2015 of the Ld. District Forum reveal that none for the OPs appeared on 08.07.2015, being the date fixed by this Commission for payment of cost and filing questionnaire thereafter by the OP No. 2, and that after such failure on the part of the OP No. 2 on the scheduled date to make payment of cost fixed by this Commission as also failure of the OP No. 2 to file questionnaire, the Ld. District Forum fixed a further date on 14.08.2015 for payment of cost which was made 'double' of the cost awarded by the Ld. District Forum as also for filing questionnaire ignoring the order dated 19.6.2015 of this Commission and on the refixed date of 14.08.2015 the OP No. 2 after payment of modified/altered cost of Rs. 2,000/- filed questionnaire which was accepted by the Ld. District Forum by its order dated 14.08.2015. Hence, the Revision Petition Nos. RP/142/2015 and RP/156/2015 assailing the said orders of the Ld. District Forum.
The Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist submits that the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned order illegally and in breach of judicial discipline without placing due regard to the order of the Hon'ble State Commission, the order of which is binding upon the District Fora as per the principle of judicial hierarchy as stipulated in Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Ld. Advocate continues that the Ld. District Forum cannot alter/modify the order of the Hon'ble State Commission, which is the higher authority of the Ld. District Forum.
The Ld. Advocate concludes that the impugned order being passed illegally as also in breach of judicial discipline the same should be set aside to enforce the judicial hierarchy as enumerated in Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.2/OP No. 2 submits that as the Complainant did not raise any objection to passing of the impugned orders before the Ld. District Forum, so the acceptance of questionnaire by the Ld. District Forum is not illegal.
The Ld. Advocates for the Respondent Nos. 1,3 & 4 submit that as no allegation has been raised against them, so they have nothing to submit save and except that the Complaint, so far it relates to them, should be dismissed.
The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 3 adds that the complaint involving the same claim against two parties is not maintainable. In this connection, the Ld. Advocate refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharti Pakar Madanlal Agarwal Vs. K.R.Narayanan & Ors., reported in (1997) 8 SCC 766.
Heard both the sides and perused the materials on records, particularly the order dated 19.6.2015 of this Commission wherein the payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- was ordered for payment on 8.7.2015 and the same date was fixed for filing questionnaire after payment of cost.
The orders dated 8.7.2015 and 14.8.2015 as passed by the Ld. District Forum clearly indicate that the Ld. District Forum altered/modified the order dated 19.6.2015 of this Commission which is a forum higher to the Ld. District Forum as indicated in the provisions of Sections 17(1)(b) and 24-B(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Such alteration/modification of the order of this Commission is contrary to the settled principle of judicial hierarchy and judicial discipline.
It is well-settled as per the principle of judicial hierarchy that the order of the higher forum, particularly of that forum which has superintendence over the lower forum, as in the present case, is binding on the lower forum.
In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav & Anr., reported in 2005 (2) SCC 42, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "....courts are bound by the judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in the country...".
On the aforesaid facts, submissions and observation the impugned orders dated 08.07.2015 and 14.08.2015 deserve interference by this Commission.
Consequently, both the Revision Petitions bearing No. RP/142/2015 and RP/156/2015 are allowed and the impugned orders dated 08.07.2015 and 14.08.2015 are set aside. The Ld. District Forum shall fix a date for filing evidence on affidavit by the O.P. No. 2.
All the parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 17.02.2017. [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER