Today is fixed for hearing the revisional petition on merit. The revisionist Medica North Bengal Clinic private Limited is present today through Ld. Advocate. The Opposite party No. 1 B.P. Roy is recorded his appearance through his Ld. Advocate. The revisional application is heard at length.

This revisional application is directed against the order dated 17/3/2017 of Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri in connection with CC no. 93/S/2016. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the OP BP Roy has registered a consumer complaint before the LD. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri against the revisionist and others with allegations of medical negligence and prayed for compensation. The matter was heard ex-parte against revisionist and others.

Thereafter, the revisionist preferred a revision before the Hon’ble State Commission, Calcutta Bench where the Hon’ble Calcutta bench heard the revision and was pleased to set aside the ex-parte order of Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri and sent back the case record  to Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri, to meet the instant consumer dispute where the actual territorial jurisdiction lies within the others Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri, issued fresh notice upon the Opposite Parties that is the revisionist no. 1 and 6. The revisionist no. 1 on 2/1/2016 appeared before the Ld. Forum and prayed for a time to file the WV. After lapse off 45 days from the first appearance of the revisionist. Ld. Forum then passed impugned order dated 17/3/2017 where it was contended that the consumer complaint be heard ex-parte for not filing W.V. Being aggrieved with this order, t his revision follows on the ground that on the date of filling of WV on 17/3/2017, the WV was ready to file the same but unfortunately the conducting Ld. Advocate Bijoy Saha due to his personal reason, could not file WV and for that reason, the order for hearing ex-parte against the revisionist was passed. In consequence, the revisionist has become debarred from contesting the case and did not get the opportunity of natural justice and for that reason this revisional application is preferred here. After receiving the copy of notice, the OP no. 1 BR Roy secured his appearance by appointing Ld. Advocate who has conducted the case on behalf of the Opposite Parties. The revision application is heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of both sides.

Decision with reasons,

Fact remains that the revisionist could not file the WV within the Statuary Period before the Ld. Forum, Jalpaiguri where the original complaint was initiated. Ld. Forum, Jalpaiguri was compelled to hear the case ex-parte due to latches on the part of the revisionist. It is a case of medical negligence and the OP no. 1 has contended that due to negligent act on the part of the revisionist and others he had to endure a great sufferance and sustained financial loss as well as physical loss.

Since the order of ex-parte was passed by the Ld. DCFRF, Jalpaiguri, the revisionist approached before the Hon’ble State Commission, Calcutta and thereafter the case was reassigned before the ld. Forum, Siliguri where also the revisionist got sufficient time to file the WV and in spite of that the revisionist has failed to submit the WV in due time. Now the question arises whether the revisionist should get an opportunity to contest the case. Whether deliberate latches on its part is clearly established.

Factual position is that, due to dilatory tactics on the part of the revisionist, the sufferance of complainant are gradually increasing day by day. At the time of hearing, it has come to our notice that the matter before the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri is still pending and final order has yet passed so there is a scope to allow the revisionist to contest the case by filing WV and in that case, the process of natural justice may be secured. We know very well that in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, the follow up of the principle of natural justice should not be ignored and no persons should be unheard before determining a issue pending before the judicial or quasi-judicial authority.

The redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are the quasi-judicial bodies where there is no mandate to follow the natural justice on the other hand, without following natural justice, the application of judicial mind may be curtailed. In that perspective, the Commission thinks it fit that to meet a consumer dispute, both sides of the case, should get an opportunity of being heard, in spite of the fact that the revisionist had serious lapses on this part and for that reason the OP no. 1 should be somehow compensated.

Accordingly the revisional petition should be allowed.

Hence,

It is ordered,

That the revisional application be and the same, filled by the revisionist Medica North Bengal Clinic Private Limited is hereby allowed on contest subject to payment of cost rupees 5000 to be paid by the revisionist to the OP no. 1 before the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri as condition precedent and subject to furnish the WV within 15 days from the date of receiving the copy of order . The order under revision dated 17/3/2017 in CC no. 93/S/2016 is hereby set aside.

Let a copy of this Order be supplied to the parties free of cost and  a copy of this order be communicated to the Ld. DCDRF, siliguri by email.