National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. Pankaj vs Taytya on 26 November, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 267 OF 2015 IN RP/1173/2015 1. DR. PANKAJ ...........Appellants(s) Versus 1. TAYTYA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Appellant : For the Respondent :
Dated : 26 Nov 2015 ORDER By this application, under Section 22(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act"), the Petitioner/Applicant prays for review of order dated 06.10.15 passed by this Commission, whereby the Revision Petition filed by him against the order, dated 05.08.14 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharasthra, affirming the order, dated 04.12.2008 passed by the District Forum, Ahmednagar in Consumer Complaint No.44/08, was dismissed. The District Forum had found the Petitioner, a practicing Homeopath, negligent and deficient in service for ..2...
prescribing Allopathic medicines and giving injection to the Complainant and directed him to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹3 lakhs towards expenses incurred by him on treatment and medicines; ₹6,75,000/- as compensation for loss of his left leg and one of the testis; ₹20,000/- as compensation towards mental agony along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of Complaint till realization.
2. The main grounds on which the review is sought are that: (i) the orders passed by the fora below are based on surmises and conjectures without appreciation of the evidence and the material available on record; (ii) District Forum had committed a grave error in relying upon the deposition of one, Mr. Yogesh Kamdar who was neither expert nor possessed of any special skill in medical science: (iii) neither the opinion of Dr. Kher nor the opinion of Dr. Rammurthy was placed on record: (iv) fora below did not consider the order, dated 30.01.2006 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karjat, Distt. Ahmednagar in STC No. 8/2000 acquitting him from the offences punishable under Section 338 of IPC; and (v) no expert evidence was adduced before the fora below to substantiate that cause of gangrene was the injection given by the Petitioner.
3. It is manifest from the aforestated grounds that the Review Petitioner is attempting to re-argue his case, which exercise is beyond the scope of power of review conferred upon this Commission u/s 22 (2) of the C.P. Act. An order can be reviewed if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. We do not find any such error apparent on the face of record, warranting review of order dated 06.10.15. The Review Application is dismissed accordingly.
..3..
4. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the applicant/Petitioner.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER