State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Sahana Shankar vs Mr G Saravanan on 8 August, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. Revision Petition No. RP/14/2023 ( Date of Filing : 13 Jun 2023 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. CC/1106/2020 of District Bangalore 2nd Additional) 1. DR. SAHANA SHANKAR SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, NO 216, 11TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 2. DR. GALE KATHLEEN SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, NO 216, 11TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 3. DR TICHA KUHALLI SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, NO 216, 11TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 4. DR JOSEPH VINOD SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, NO 216, 11TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 5. DR KANCHAN N G SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, NO 216, 11TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. MR G SARAVANAN S/O LATE R GOVINDRAJ, RESIDING AT NO. 311, 9TH CROSS, 14TH STAGE, PILLANNA GARDEN, ST. THOMSTOWN POST, SAGAYAPURAM, BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 2. SMT SANJULA RESIDING AT NO. 311, 9TH CROSS, 14TH STAGE, PILLANNA GARDEN, ST. THOMSTOWN POST, SAGAYAPURAM, BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 3. NEW JANAPRIYA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL COMPLEX 2, C/330 FIRST FLOOR MM PART HALL, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560043 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 4. DR A M SHAFIQ SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, NO 216, 11TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 5. H V SATISH BABU SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, NO 216, 11TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 6. DR NANDA KISHORE NEW JANA PRIYA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, COMPLEX 2, C/330 FIRST FLOOR MM PART HALL, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560043 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 7. SPECIALIST HOSPITAL SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, NO 216, 11TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 8. DR DIVAKER NEW JANA PRIYA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, COMPLEX 2, C/330 FIRST FLOOR MM PART HALL, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560043 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 9. DR RAVI NANDAN G S NEW JANA PRIYA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, COMPLEX 2, C/330 FIRST FLOOR MM PART HALL, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560043 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 10. DR S R RAJAPRATHIBAN NEW JANA PRIYA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, COMPLEX 2, C/330 FIRST FLOOR MM PART HALL, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560043 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 11. DR VINEETHA RAGHU NEW JANA PRIYA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, COMPLEX 2, C/330 FIRST FLOOR MM PART HALL, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560043 BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 12. DR YAVUARAJ MANOHAR SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, NO 216, 11TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 13. DR KAVITHA M P SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, NO 216, 11TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 14. DR RAVISH T B SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, NO 216, 11TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 15. DR SRIRAM SPECIALIST HOSPITAL, NO 216, 11TH MAIN, 80 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 08 Aug 2023 Final Order / Judgement
08.08.2023 ORDER ON ADMISSION BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Revision Petitioners/Opposite Party Nos.11, 12, 13, 16 & 18 have filed this Revision Petition being aggrieved by the Order on I.A u/o 9 Rule 7 r/w Sec.151 of CPC dt. 03.06.2023 passed in CC.No.1106/2020 on the file of 2nd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and submits that the complainant had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence and claimed for compensation to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- against Respondent No.4 and other doctors including these Revision petitioners.
2. After service of the notice, the hospital where they are working had represented the case and filed version. These Revision Petitioners not appeared before the District Commission under the impression that the hospital has placed on record all details pertaining to their innocence. But it is an imperative for them to come on the record and filed an application u/o 9 Rule 7 r/w Sec 151 CPC to set aside the order of exparte.
3. The District Commission after hearing from this Revision petitioner and respondent has dismissed the application as application are filed belatedly and there is no reasons for setting aside the order of exparte, hence dismissed. In fact, these Revision petitioners are working under the Respondent No.4 hospital, the complainant alleged medical negligence on all the Doctors who have participated in treatment. After issuance of the notice they one under the impression that the Hospital Authority will place all the required documents and other materials to show this Revision Petitioners are innocent. Later on, they came to know that the complaint had initiated application to refer the matter to the Karnataka Medical Council, the said application was dismissed and this Revision Petitioners are very much required in the proceedings to show their innocence by participating in the proceedings. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and permit them to participate in the proceedings by setting aside the order of exparte in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Heard from Revision Petitioners.
5. On perusal of the certified copies of the order passed by the District Commission on IA Nos.12 to 16 filed by these Revision Petitioners u/o 9 Rule 7 r/w section 151 of CPC, the District Commission noticed that after receipt of the complaint the District Commission issued notice to all 18 OP/s including these Revision Petitioners on 18.01.2021 through RPAD and directed all the OP/s including these Revision Petitioners to appear on 19.02.2021 before the District Commission. But, this Revision Petitioners in spite of service of notice have not appeared or represented through any pleader. The District Commission noticing the said absence had placed these Revision Petitioners as exparte through the order dated 19.02.2021 and proceeded to adjudicate the matter filed by the complainant.
6. This Revision Petitioner on 15.03.2023 filed application to set aside the order of exparte and permit them to contest the matter the said application were rejected for the reasons that there is a delay in filing their application and the complaint now stands for arguments from both sides and dismissed the request.
7. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. We found there is no error made by the District Commission. It is directed by the District Commission to all these Revision Petitioner to appear before District Commission on 19.02.2021. But, these Revision Petitioners assuming themselves that the hospital who represents them plead these Revision Petitioners innocent and not appeared, the District Commission noticing their absence had placed exparte. It is bounded duty on the part of these Revision Petitioners to appear before District Commission upon the receipt of notice issued by the District Commission. It is a clear negligence on the part of these Revision Petitioners in not appearing before the District Commission to take any defense individually. Later on, these Revision Petitioners also not made any attempt to set aside an order of exparte at the earliest point of time. It is only at the stage of arguments, these Revision Petitioners have filed an application u/o 9 Rule 7 r/w Sec 1 CPC to set aside the order of exparte on 15.03.2023 that to after lapse of nearly two years. The application was filed by these Revision Petitioners are too belated. No valid grounds to urged in the application and accompanying affidavits filed before District Commission for not filing the application to set aside the exparte order at the earliest point of time. In the absence of such we consider this Revision Petitioner shown very negligence in not appearing before District Commission. We do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission. Such this Revision Petition fails. Hence, the following;
O R D E R The Revision Petition is dismissed.
Forward free copies to both parties.
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar) Member Judicial Member P* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER