BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

RP 39 of 2013 in CCIA 76 of 2013

in CC 949 of 2011, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.   

Between:

Dr. A. V. Gurava Reddy

Chairman & Managing Director

Sunshine Hospital

1-7-201 to 205, P.G. Road

Secunderabad-530 003.                              ***                         Petitioner/

O.P. No. 2

And

1)  Smt. Y. Rama Devi

W/o. Poli Reddy, Flat No. 304,

Sita Apartments, Bhanu Nagar

Maddlapalem

Visakapatnam.                                           ***                         Respondent/

Complainant  

2)  Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences

D.No. 1-8-31/1, Minister Road

Secunderabad

Rep. by its Director. *** Respondent/

(R2  is a formal party)                                                              Op No. 1                                                                       

Counsel for the Petnrs/Ops                        M/s. Trujya N. Ganguly

Counsel for the  Resp/Comp.                      M/s.  V. Gourishankara Rao (R1)

                                                                   M/s. M. Chalapathi Rao (R2)

CORAM:

                             SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER

&

                             SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

Oral Order: ( Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Member )

                                                          ***

1)                Aggrieved by the order in  IA No. 76/2013  in CC 949/2011 on the file of  Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad, O.P. No. 2 preferred this revision .

2)                The docket order of the Dist. Forum dt.  20.3.2013 reads as follows:

           “Sri Om Prakash, Advocate  is appointed to cross-examine  Dr. A.G. Gurava Reddy and file report of Advocate Commissioner.  To fix date of cross-examination and intimate to both  sides before execution of Warrant.   Advocate Commissioner’s   fee is fixed at Rs. 2,000/-.  For report call on 18.4.2013. 

3)                 The learned counsel for the  revision petitioner relied on the judgment of  National Commission in  Con Décor Vs.  Smt. Smritikanta Ghose   wherein  it was held   “If  cross-examination of a person is to be permitted in every case under the Consumer Protection Act, the whole object of this Act would be lost and there would hardly be any difference in proceedings  before the Fora  under the Act and a Civil Court.”  He further contended that the Dist. Forum erred in appointing an advocate commission.   The learned counsel for the petitioner/Op2 relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant  & Othrs Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi reported in (2002)  6 SCC 635  and  contended that the parties be directed to file interrogatories.

4)                 The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the petitioner/opposite party had an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and when the same opportunity was being prayed by the complainant to cross-examine the doctor, the petitioner has come up with this revision.   Though the Dist. Forum  did not call  the doctor  to the  Forum for cross-examination but  has only appointed an advocate commissioner   Sri Om Prakash  to cross- examine the doctor Dr.  A. V. Gurava Reddy.

5)                 Keeping in view  the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision relied on by the petitioner/Opposite Party  No. 2  in Con Décor Vs.  Smt. Smritikanta Ghose,   in the instant case, it  does not apply as the  opposite party  had an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant before the Dist. Forum but  when the complainant is asking for the same opportunity, he has submitted that cross-examination of witnesses before the Dist. Forum is not a rule but only an exception.    The complainant sought for  cross-examination of the  revision petitioner a doctor by profession. 

6)                 At  the outset, we observe that it is a case of medical negligence, and secondly keeping in view the balance of equities as  in the instant case the complainant was cross-examined by the  opposite party,  and an equal opportunity should be given to the complainant also to cross-examine  O.P. No. 2  i.e., the revision petitioner,  however, as he is a doctor by profession, we do not see it a fit case that the doctor should  come to the Consumer Forum for cross-examination.    We do not see any grounds to interfere  with  the order of the Dist. Forum.  However, we fix the time frame  that the  advocate commissioner  shall appear before the Dist. Forum  on 19.9.2013 and shall  submit  his report within two weeks from 19.9.2013 before the Dist. Forum.   Both sides shall appear before the Dist. Forum without insisting on fresh notice on 19.9.2013 and the Dist. Forum shall proceed and dispose of the main case also expeditiously within three months. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDING MEMBER           

2)      ________________________________

MEMBER

05/09/2013

*pnr

UP LOAD – O.K.