National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt.Uma vs Dr.Santosh Gupta on 25 May, 2026
.IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
Reserved on 15.05.2026
Pronounced on 25.05.2026
REVISION PETITION NO.383 OF 2026
(Against the order dated 28.07.2025 in First Appeal No.183/2023
of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, M.P.)
with
IA/4212/2026, IA/4213/2026
(Condonation of delay, Exemption from dim documents)
Smt. Uma Tiwari
W/o Shri Ajay Tiwari
R/o 103, Nachan Regency
22 A Narayan Bagh, Indore (M.P.) Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. Santosh Gupta
Subhishi Hospital, Gauidham Colony
Khargone (M.P.)-451 001
2. Choithram Netralaya
Through its Director
Dhar Road, Indore (M.P.)-452002
3. Dr. Ashwini Sharma
Trusty, Choithram Netralaya,
Dhar Road, Indore (M.P.)-452002
4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
8/3, Yashwant Niwas Road
Indore (M.P.)-452003 Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
Appeared at the time of arguments:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranu Purohit, Advocate
RP 383 2026 1
ORDER
A.P. SAHL J. (PRESIDENT)
1. This Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent Orders passed by the DCDRC, Indore in CC/223/2012 dated 22.12.2022 and the Order passed by the M.P. SCDRC in FA/183/2023 dated 28.07.2025.
2. The Complainant Smt. Uma Tiwari had a problem in her right eye, for which she consulted the first Respondent who performed the procedure of YAG PI (Yaag Peripheral Iridotomy) on 30.07.2009 in Choithram Eye Hospital, Indore. According to the Complainant, the first Respondent was negligent by attempting the procedure in spite of the fact that the Complainant was a patient of renal disorder and was undergoing dialysis. The said procedure was performed on the same day when she was undergoing her cycle of dialysis at Choithram Hospital which is at a distance of 15-16 kilometers away from the eye Hospital. Her allegation is that this was done without consulting the nephrologist or conducting any pre-operative tests or diagnosis and was, therefore, a totally negligent performance. There are other allegations also made and it is stated that when she had a problem in February, 2010 in her left eye, then the treatment was carried out in consultation with the nephrologist. RP 383 2026 2
3. On coming to know of this short-coming in the procedure adopted by the Respondent No.1, she requested for the complete file of the treatment of her right eye, but the same was not provided and realising that this was a negligent act of the Respondent No.1, a Complaint was lodged before the Medical Council of Madhya Pradesh on 19.05.2012 that was routed through the Medical Council of India. This Complaint was filed after almost two years of the performance of the procedure in the right eye and subsequent thereto CC/223/2012 was instituted on 01.03.2012 that has given rise to the present Revision Petition.
4. The District Commission and the State Commission have after traversing the facts found no negligence against the Respondent and it is aggrieved by these Orders that the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant.
5. We may point out that the Complaint was filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the year 2012 and therefore, the revisional jurisdiction under Section-21 (b) of the 1986 Act continues to be available to the Complainant read with the provisions of Section-58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act that are parimateria. Needless to mention that the scope of a Revision Petition under the aforesaid provisions is limited to a jurisdictional error or some manifest material irregularity or illegality resulting from the failure to RP 383 2026 3 exercise jurisdiction, that the Forum is available for a corrective measure as held by the Apex Court in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company, (2011) 11 SCO 269, Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. SBI, (2022) 20 SCC 543 and Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Ors., (2022) 9 SCC 31.
6. The Complainant by profession was a teacher and aggrieved by the loss of her vision in right eye, she had filed the Complaint as also the proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council. She was suffering from the ailment of cataract and early symptoms of glaucoma and according to the facts recorded by the Fora below, they were categorized as symptoms of Central Retinal Vein Occlusion with Macular Edema. She consulted one Dr. Ram Kumar, who was a Retina specialist. Thereafter, she came for treatment at Choithram Netralaya, whereafter the first Respondent performed the procedure about which allegations were made that this was a negligent act on the part of the Respondent No.1.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that this matter was examined in detail by the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council and she has invited the attention of the Bench to further investigations that had been carried out during an enquiry conducted on the directions of the District Commission itself during the pendency of the Complaint. The District Commission had called upon the RP 383 2026 4 Superintendent of M.Y. Hospital, Indore, vide its letter dated 12.04.2012 from where a report arrived on 01.05.2012 wherein it was opined that the patient suffering from a chronic kidney disease can be taken on for such eye surgery provided the blood pressure and other hemodynamic parameters are under control. However, the Committee in its Report dated 01.05.2012 further opined that without appropriate documents and records, medical negligence cannot be commented on.
8. She also pointed out that the Complainant was also certified to be suffering from disability for which a certificate was also granted under the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Guarantee Act, 2010.
9. Learned Counsel also urged that on 27.11.2013, the District Commission called upon the Chief Medical Officer to give a report but the information given was that the Committee constituted by the Chief Medical Officer declined to render any opinion as the matter was subjudice vide their letter dated 31.01.2013.
10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, urged that during the said enquiry before the Chief Medical Officer, the Complainant's statement had been recorded and learned Counsel, inviting the attention of the Bench to the answers given to Question Nos.2 & 3 to contend that the Complainant had given an answer. For this he urged that the conclusion drawn by the Fora below on this count is RP 383 2026 5 based on the misreading of the said documents of statement and hence, the Orders are vitiated.
11. The Madhya Pradesh Medical Council on the Complaint proceeded to examine the matter and on 26.02.2015 passed an Order in detail holding the Respondent No.1 to be negligent and observing that the Respondent No.1 did not follow the pre-evaluation and assessing procedure needed prior to the performance of YAG PI. Secondly, he had not obtained informed written consent before the procedure. Pursuant to this finding, the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council suspended the license of the Respondent No.1 to practice as a doctor and his name was temporarily erased from the State medical register fora period of one year from 28.02.2015 to 27.02.2016.
12. Against the said decision, an Appeal was preferred under the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council Act, 1987 by the Respondent No.1 and vide Order dated 18.05.2015 the State Government modified the Order of the Medical Council by reducing the period of suspension from one year to three months.
13. Two Writ Petitions were filed, Writ Petition No.6781/2015 by the Respondent No.1 doctor assailing both the Orders referred to above namely dated 26.02.2015 and 18.05.2015 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Indore Bench and the other Writ Petition was filed by the Complainant being Writ No.6691/2015 where she RP 383 2026 6 prayed that the Order of the State Government reducing the punishment in Appeal vide Order dated 18.05.2015 be set aside, and the Original Order of suspension for one year passed by the Medical Council, Madhya Pradesh be restored.
14. Both these Writ Petitions were simultaneously heard and vide judgment dated 29.01.2018, the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.1 Doctor was allowed holding that there was no act of negligence on his part and accordingly the Orders dated 26.02.2015 and 18.05.2015 were quashed.
15. Resultantly, the Writ Petition filed by the Complainant stood dismissed.
16. The Order of the High Court dated 29.01.2018 is extracted hereunder:
"Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of the Writ Petition No.6781/2015 are narrated hereunder.
2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2015 (Ex.P-2) passed by the M.P. Medical Council and order dated 18.05.2015 (Ex.P-5) passed by the State Government.
3. The facts of the case reveal that in the year 2009, the petitioner was working as an ophthalmologist at Choithram Hospital and on 29.07.2009, the patient reported before the hospital for CRVO (Central Retinal Vein Occlusion).RP 383 2026 7
4. As per the statement of the petitioner, he was having chances of glaucoma attack and he was informed that a laser surgery will have to be performed. Petitioner's contention is that the patient was informed about the pros and cons of the surgery and on 30.07.2009, for laser surgery (YAG PI), a sum of Rs. 15,00/- was deposited by the patient.
5. It has also been stated that the patient was suffering from renal disorder and was undergoing dialysis in the same hospital. It has been further stated that after 3 years of the operation, on 19.05.2012, a complaint was placed to the Medical Council of India alleging that he has lost vision of his right eye. To probe the matter, a committee was constituted and the committee has submitted its report.
6. The committee has held the petitioner guilty and vide order 01.02.2015 he was debarred from practicing for one year. Against which, an appeal was preferred and now, the one year period has been reduced to three months. The committee has found Dr. Santosh Gupta guilty of committing an act of negligence as before carrying out the laser surgery (YAG PI) the procedure pre evaluation was not done which resulted in loss of vision in right eye. The committee also arrived at a conclusion that Dr. Santosh Gupta did not obtain written consent before YAG PI and thus has violated Regulation No.7.16 of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002.
7. Record of the case reveals that the council in its report has observed that vision of the patient before the surgery and after the surgery was same, however, M.P. State Medical Council has debarred the petitioner for a period of one year from practicing.
8. There is another writ petition filed by the patient, who has undergone the surgery Dr. Uma Tiwari and her contention is that Dr. Santosh Gupata has rightly been punished vide order dated 26.02.2015 and the appellate authority/State of M.P. has reduced the punishment period from one year to three months without hearing the complainant. Her contention is that it was the fault of the doctor that pre evaluation and assessment of RP 383 2026 8 the need was not done resulting in deterioration of his right eye. She has also stated that the order reducing the punishment period deserves to be set aside. Various grounds have been raised in the matter by Dr. Uma Tiwari in W.P. No.6691/2015.
9. This Court has carefully gone through the report submitted by the Ethics cum Disciplinary Committee, Madhya Pradesh Medical Council Bhopal. Relevant extracts of the report read as under:-
"Proceedinqs of the Ethics cum Disciplinary Committee Meeting dated 1-2-2015- In compliance of Council's Notice dated 3-1-2015, Mrs. Uma Ajay Tiwari along with her husband Mr. Ajay Tiwari, Dr. Santosh Gupta, Ophthalmologist Khargone and Dr. Manish Dave Medical Director Choithram Netralaya appeared before the Committee on 1-2-2015.
(i) The applicant Mrs. Tiwari and her husband reiterated in detail the averments made in original complaint that she has lost her eye sight in right eye due to negligence of Dr. Santosh Gupta and submitted that, being a kidney patient, who is on regular dialysis, Dr. Santosh Gupata should have taken precaution and at least should have discussed with her Nephrologist before initiating any procedure. She also charged Dr. Gupta as instrumental in misplacing her treatment file from Choithram Hospital. On specific question regarding delay in filing petition, the applicant explained that time and again we were assured of restoration of my eye sight as well as I was trying to procure treatment papers from the Choithram Netralaya which I have not yet received and that currently she is undergoing treatment Rajas Eye and Retina Hospital.
The applicant was cross examined by the Ophthalmic specialist and accepted that her current vision in right eye is same as it was before YAG PI. To the query that why she herself did not inform the Nephrologist before dialysis, she could not give any satisfactory answer.
(ii) Dr. Santosh Gupta in his submission before the committee refuted the charges and tried to justified his decision of subjecting the applicant to YAG PI for prophylactic purpose and that before YAG PI he got the patient examined by Retina RP 383 2026 9 specialist Dr. Rama Kumar. Dr. Gupta again reiterated that he felt no need to consult Nephrologist and also gave many reference in this regard.
Dr. Santosh Gupta was also cross examined in detail by the subject expert. During cross examination Dr. Gupta revealed that • No pre YAG PI angiography was done.
• That patient had optic disc oedema and macular oedama.
• Only single Gonioscopy was done and no neovasvuylarisation was done.
• Dr. Santosh Gupta agreed that on 29-7-2009 patients IOP was normal.
• That the patient was explained regarding YAG PI procedure and its complication however written informed consent was not taken.
(iii) Dr. Manish Dave the Medical Director Choithram Netralaya appeared before the Committee and submitted that he is totally unaware of the facts of the case since he has recently taken over as Director of the Choithram Netralaya. However on the lapse in not providing treatment papers to the patient on demand by hospital management, he tendered unconditional apology and got handed over the desired case paper to the applicant Thus the grievance of the applicant of non providing the document stand resolved.
Observation-
1. There is not gross deterioration in the vision of right eye as before YAG PI also it was PI. at one feet.
2. Patient vision was deteriorated because of CRVO. The cause may be hypertension but the applicant did not took any treatment in time.
3. Generally patient themselves inform the treating doctor regarding any medical intervention they have undergone during on before some other medical procedure. While in this case it appears that patient herself not bothered to inform the Nephrologist.
RP 383 2026 10
4. It was not a proven case of glaucoma. The IOP was normal, No pre YAG PI evaluation wad done. In Cases of optic disc and macular oedema also YAG PI is not indicated. For excluding neovacularisation many, gonioscopy reading are required while in this case only one gonioscopy reading was taken. Since YAG PI also pre disposes raised 10P, The Nephrologist should have been communicated or at least, pre YAG PI nephrology/Medical clearance should have been obtained. It was an already decompensated eye and since there was no urgency the patient could have been put on medical treatment instead of YAG PI.
G. Decision of the Ethics-cum-Disciplinary Committee dt. 1-2-2015 1- The Committee found Dr. Santosh Gupta of committing an act of negligence while deciding to undertake the instant case for YAG PI Procedure without any pre evaluation and assessing the need due to which patient has underwent avoidable suffering though her vision of right eye is not deteriorated. The current vision is same as that of before YAG PI.
2- Dr. Santosh Gupta did not obtain informed written consent before YAG PI and thus has violated Regulation No.7.16 of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002.
Conclusion-
1- On both these counts the Committee decides to suspend the registration of Dr. Santosh Gupta for a period of one year effective from the date of order.
2- The Committee accepted apology of Medical Director of Choithram Netralaya Indore hence no. action is required. However The Medical Director of Choithram Netralaya be directed to observe and practice the concerned regulation of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regarding 2002 strictly any disobedience in this regard would fetch stringent action in future.
RP 383 2026 11 3- The aggrieved party is free to prefer an appeal before Medical Council of India New Delhi under regulation No. 8.8 within a period of 60 days from the receipt of this order."
10. There is certainly an observation made by the committee that there was gross deterioration in the vision of the right eye and before YAG PI, also it was PL-1 feet, meaning thereby there was no material change so far as vision is concerned. The report also reflected that Nephrologist should have been communicated about the laser treatment and there was no urgency in the matter and the patient could have been put on medical treatment instead of YAG PI.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the doctor was treating glaucoma, which is a problem because of which in case, loss of vision takes place, it is not retrievable as the vision once lost cannot be retrieved in case of glaucoma. By putting medicine, doctors can stop further deterioration of vision in case of glaucoma and in order to ensure that no damage is done, the only procedure available as argued is to make a very small hole in the eye so that the fuel collected in the eye is drainaged out for keeping the eye pressure normal.
12. Resultantly, it was the doctor, who was the best judge who at the spur of moment decided to carry out the laser treatment in order to ensure that there is no damage to the retina and no loss of vision takes place.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the doctor is the best judge to decide in a particular situation whether any procedure has to be carried out or not. In the present case, Dr. Santosh Gupta decided to carry out the procedure YAG PI keeping in view the need of hour and he cannot be blamed for carrying out the procedure. It is true that there can be minor lapse on the part of Dr. Santosh Gupta by not informing the Nephrologist but, it does not mean that he was careless and negligent in the matter.
14. The Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State Of Punjab & Anr., reported in 2005 (6) SCC, 1 in paragraph Nos.28 and 29 has held as under:-
RP 383 2026 12
"28. A medical practitioner faced with an emergency ordinarily tries his best to redeem the patient out of his suffering. He does not gain anything by acting with negligence or by omitting to do an act. Obviously, therefore, it will be for the complainant to clearly make out a case of negligence before a medical practitioner is charged with or proceed against criminally. A surgeon with shaky hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a successful operation and a quivering physician cannot administer the end-dose of medicine to his patient.
29. If the hands be trembling with the dangling fear of facing a criminal prosecution in the event of failure for whatever reason, whether attributable to himself or not, neither can a surgeon successfully wield his life-saving scalpel to perform an essential surgery, nor can a physician successfully administer the life-saving dose of medicine. Discretion being the better part of valour, a medical professional would feel better advised to leave a terminal patient to his own fate in the case of emergency where the chance of success may be 10% (or so), rather than taking the risk of making a last ditch effort towards saving the subject and facing a criminal prosecution if his effort fails. Such timidity forced upon a doctor would be disservice to society."
15. In the aforesaid case, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that a surgeon with shaky hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a successful operation. He does not gain anything by acting with negligence or by omitting to do an act.
16. There is no material on record to establish that the doctor, who has performed the operation has acted with negligence. He has given his best possible treatment keeping in view the need of hours and, therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 26.02.2015 (Ex.P-2) and order dated 18.05.2015 (Ex.P-5) deserve to be guashed and are, accordingly, quashed.
With the aforesaid, both the writ petitions are disposed of." RP 383 2026 13
17. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that this decision was rendered in 2018 whereas the impugned Order of the District Commission has been rendered on 22.12.2022 after evidence was furnished by the Complainant before the District Commission and which according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was not available to the High Court when the Writ Petition was allowed. She therefore submits that the judgment of the High Court is no impediment in considering the merits of the Complaint independently and therefore, the District Commission erroneously while dismissing the Complaint instead of analyzing the entire Evidence that was before it strongly relied on the outcome of the Writ Petition to dismiss the Complaint. She has invited the attention of the Bench to Para-14 of the Order of the District Commission dated 22.12.2022 to point out the same.
18. She has urged that the Order of the Medical Council of Madhya Pradesh dated 26.02.2015 has substantially dealt with minutely every aspect to hold that the Respondent No.1 was negligent and even thereafter, in the Complaint, the evidence led was sufficient to hold him to be negligent. In such circumstances, there is a material illegality in the Order of the District Commission impugned herein.
19. The Complainant aggrieved by the Order of the District Commission preferred FA/183/2023 before the State Commission RP 383 2026 U4 and learned Counsel submits that the same error has been committed by the State Commission by ignoring the evidence on record and the dismissal of the Appeal once again relying on the Order of the High Court is unjustified. She further points out that the finding recorded in Para-22 regarding the statement made by the Complainant that has been referred to above is nowhere contradictory and the inference drawn that the Complainant did not inform the nephrologist about her eye treatment cannot be considered as negligence on the part of the Complainant. She therefore submits that the said finding in Para-22 is contrary to the evidence on record, for which, she had read out the statement as referred to hereinabove. It is, therefore urged that the Order of the State Commission also suffers from this material irregularity on account of a mis-appreciation of facts against the evidence on record.
20. Learned Counsel has cited the decision in the case of Najrul Seikh Vs. Dr. Sumit Banerjee & Anr. (2024) 20 SCO Vol.24 Page- 703, Para-13 to buttress her submissions.
21. There cannot be a dispute regarding the proposition enunciated in the said decision which was rendered in a consumer complaint. However, the said decision is clearly distinguishable as against the facts of the present case where there is a judicial intervention by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh quashing the very same evidence RP 383 2026 15 namely the Order of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council and the State Government and then holding that the Respondent No.1 is not negligent. The question of assessing the contradictions as suggested therefore does not arise in the present case but even otherwise, the State Commission has recorded its findings as discussed herein under. Consequently, the said decision does not come to the aid of the Petitioner.
22. We have considered the submissions in detail and we have perused the Orders passed by the District Commission as well as the State Commission. We find from the findings recorded by the State Commission that reliance placed on the High Court judgment is also coupled with several findings on the merits of the matter including the procedure, the medical authorities in support of the procedure and then the conclusion after discussing the same that the decision for treatment by the Respondent No.1 through the YAG PI procedure was found to be appropriate in the absence of any contradictory opinion of any other expert. Para-15 to 19 of the Order of the State Commission records the same. We do not find any error much less a jurisdictional error to exercise our revisional jurisdiction on such findings.
23. The State Commission then further from Para-20 proceeds to record findings upto Para-22 and it is here that it has been RP 383 2026 16 emphasized by the learned Counsel that the State Commission has erroneously inferred the contradiction in the version of the Complainant. Be that as it may, the said version was a statement before the Chief Medical Officer way back in the year 2012 and the Committee constituted by the Chief Medical Officer declined to make any comments on the basis of such a statement.
24. We may point out that this being a case of alleged medical negligence, the Order of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council dated 26.02.2015 and that of the State Government on 18.05.2015 did indict the Respondent No.1 for negligence but it is the said Orders that came to be challenged before the High Court where the High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the same and also went on to hold that the Respondent No.1 was not negligent. The judgment is by a Constitutional Court on the same subject matter and therefore, we have to presume that the High Court had been apprised of the entire evidence and the material on record in as much as undoubtedly the Complainant also had filed her Writ Petition challenging the reduction of the period of punishment of the Respondent No.1. Thus, the Complainant was an active participant and contestant before the High Court. Such exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be said to be of a summary nature and the Order of the Writ Court is not only binding on the parties but it is equally RP 383 2026 17 binding on tribunals. It is not a question of res judicata only but is also a matter of judicial propriety and discipline that the Order of the Writ Court cannot be ignored by the tribunals, including the Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, so as to take a different view when once the High Court has recorded that the Respondent No.1 is not negligent. It goes without saying that a Writ jurisdiction is not an alternative remedy.
25. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Complainant that in view of the provisions of Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Section-100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the proceedings before the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other proceedings, cannot be accepted, more so when in the present case the Order of the High Court was delivered on 29.01.2018 whereafter the Complaint was decided.
26. We cannot subscribe to this submission for the additional reason that the judgment of the High Court was a judicial intervention during the pendency of the Complaint, and given its binding effect regarding the finding on negligence, the fora below could not have ignored it. Not only this, the State Commission has also recorded separate reasons apart from the impact of the Order of the High Court. The National Commission, therefore, cannot exercise powers RP 383 2026 18 so as to upturn the conclusion drawn by the High Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article-226 of the Constitution of India. As stated above, all Commissions are within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. Over and above this, we may further refer to the ratio of the decisions in the cases that we have mentioned at the outset regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. As noted above, Section-21 (b) of the 1986 Act and the provisions of Section-58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act are perimeteria. While interpreting Section-21(b), the Apex Court in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta (supra) has observed as under:
"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage ofjustice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a RP 383 2026 19 case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora. "
27. This was followed in the decision of Sunil Kumar Maity (supra), which is extracted herein under"
"12. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely, when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."
28. Another decision elaborating on the same and holding that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised to interfere with concurrent findings of facts by the fora below in the case of Rajiv Shukla (supra) observed as follows:
"12. At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered with by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the RP 383 2026 20 National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
13. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
14. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction. "
29. Given the said limited scope, this Commission cannot commit an overreach so as to re-examine the issue of negligence once RP 383 2026 • 21 concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the fora below that have rightly relied upon the Order of the High Court as referred to above, where the Respondent No.1 has been found not to be negligent.
30. At the close of arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that she has been informed that against the judgment of the judgment of the learned single judge of the High Court dated 29.01.2018, Writ Appeal No.278/2018 was filed and that the same is still pending. She has produced a copy of the Order-sheet dated 19.03.2024 and we find that possibly the Order of the Hon'ble Single Judge is subjudice before the High Court itself.
31. We in the above circumstances, do not find any reason to entertain this Revision Petition as analyzed above without prejudice to the rights of the Complainant to her contentions in the Writ Appeal which is stated to be pending before the High Court.
32. The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
( A.P. SAHI, J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
( BHARATKUMAR PANDYA)
V MEMBER
AS/CM-VM/C-1
RP 383 2026 22