State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gopal Shetty vs Dr.Leela.V on 1 July, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. Review Application No. RA/35/2021 ( Date of Filing : 26 Jul 2021 ) In Revision Petition No. RP/18/2021 1. Gopal Shetty aged 75 yrsm S/o Late Sankappa Shetty, R/at Sri Nilayam, No.49, 2F, 4th floor, Ashoka Avenur D Cross, Murugeshpalya, Blore 560017. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Dr.Leela.V aged 75 yrs, W/o late V R Naidu, R/at 1954, 9th cross, 4th main, HAL 4th stage, New Thippasandra, Blore 560075. 2. Dr.Ninan Thomas, Residing at No.404, Vas Ferndale,First Main,Kodihalli, HAL II nd stage, Bengaluru-560008 3. Dr. Santhosh, Nephrology Chinmaya Mission Hospital,Indiranagar,Bengaluru-560 038 4. The Medical Superintendent Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560 038 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 01 Jul 2022 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JULY 2022 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 35/2021 Mr. Gopala Shetty, Aged about 75 years, S/o Late Sankappa Shetty, R/at No.49, Sri Nilayam, 2F, 4th Floor, Ashoka Avenue 'D' Cross, Murugeshpalya, BENGALURU 560 017.
(By Sri M.K. Venkatramana) ...... Petitioner/s V/s
1. Dr. V. Leela, Aged about 75 years, W/o Late V.R. Naidu, R/at No.1954, 9th Cross, 4th Main, HAL 5th Stage, New Thippasandra, Bengaluru 560 075.
... Respondent/s
2. Dr. Ninan Thomas, Aged about 60 year, R/at No.404, Vas Ferndale, First Main, Kodihalli, HAL Second Stage, Bengaluru 560 008.
3. Dr. Santhosh, Nephrology, Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Indiranagar, Bengaluru 560 038.
4. The Medical Superintendent, Nephrology, Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Indiranagar, Bengaluru 560 038.
:ORDER ON ADMISSION:
BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER The Review Applicant has preferred this Review Application being aggrieved by the Order dt.22.04.2021 passed in Revision Petition No.18/2021 for various reasons and prays to set aside the order.
2. On going through the Review Application filed U/s 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and order passed by us, it is appropriate to quote the provisions of Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 2019 hereunder:-
"The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order".
3. We noticed here that the order passed by this Commission has no error either in law or any error apparent on the face of record as contemplated U/s 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
4. On going through the Review Application, Order passed by us in RP.No.18/2021, the petitioner has categorically stated that the cross-examination is not a rule but it is only an exception. We have directed the complainant to provide interrogatories in detail to extract the elaborate answers from the Opposite Parties, so that it saves the court time. We found that there is no error on the face of the Order passed by this Commission. If at all the Review Applicant is not satisfied with the Order, he is at liberty to approach the Apex Court by preferring an appeal, therefore, the Review Application filed u/s 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is not maintainable as the provisions does not attract the grounds made by the applicant. Hence, the following;
: ORDER:
The Review Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Notify the order to the parties and place this order/records along with concerned appeal records.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER