National Consumer Disputes Redressal
S.K. Jhunjhunwala vs Dhanwanti Kumar & Anr on 9 May, 2001
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELLH
REVISION
PETITION NO. 1502 OF 2001
(From the order dated 4.7.2000
in S.C. Case No.698/97
of the State Commission,
West Bengal)
Dr. S.K. Jhunjhunwala .. Petitioner
Vs.
Mrs. Dhanwanti Kumar & Anr. .. Respondents
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR.
JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,
PRESIDENT
HONBLE MR.
JUSTICE C.L. CHAUDHRY, MEMBER
HONBLE MR.
JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER
MR. B.K.
TAIMNI, MEMBER.
Medical negligence - Reputation of medical practitioner-
His right to cross- examine upheld.
For the petitioner :
Ms. Varsha Kriplani, Advocate
for Mr. S.N. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Narender Pal, Advocate.
DATED THE 9TH MAY, 2001
ORDER
PER JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA (PRESIDENT) This petition is directed against the order of the West Bengal State Commission denying the petitioner his right to cross-examine the witness.
Petitioner is a medical practitioner. He is opposite party No.1 in a complaint filed by the first respondent alleging medical negligence. Complaint was filed in December, 1997. It is contended by the petitioner that hearing took place on five dates and on 8.5.98 when arguments were being addressed by him two affidavits were filed by the complainant. He objected to the filing of the affidavit at that stage. However, his request to cross-examine the deponents was allowed. On one date complainant was cross-examined. On the second date husband of the complainant who had also given the affidavit was partly cross-examined. Thereafter for almost 1-1/2 years no hearing took place as the State Commission had not been properly constituted. When on 4.7.200 State Commission took up the matter it passed impugned order holding that it was not necessary to cross-examine the husband of the complainant and that the matter could be decided on the affidavits.
Aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Commission. When in the complaint medical negligence is alleged and reputation of the petitioner as a medical practitioner was involved, he should not have been denied the right to cross-examine the witness whose affidavit has been filed, particularly, part cross-examination has already taken place. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the State Commission and remit the matter to the State Commission to proceed with the complaint, permitting the petitioner- opposite party no.1 to cross-examine the witness. Revision petition is disposed of as above.
.J. (D.P. WADHWA) PRESIDENT ..J. (C.L. CHAUDHRY) MEMBER ..J. ( J.K. MEHRA ) MEMBER ( B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER