ORDER

1.       This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 10.3.2017 passed in CC No. 30 of 2016 by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the State Commission erroneously rejected the application of Bhopal Memorial Hospital & Research Center (in short, ‘BMHRC’)/appellants to bring their reply on record as against the order of the Hon’ble State Commission dated 10.11.2016 by which the appellants’ right to file a reply was closed.

2.       Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Amicus Curiae present on behalf of the respondent.  Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the hospital is a Government Hospital, which provides free services, therefore, complaint is not maintainable.  This is the matter for merit which is not needed at this juncture.     The State Commission passed the order as below:

                    “10.3.2017

                    None for the complainant.

Shri Sunil Shrivastava and Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, advocates for opposite parties.

This case has been taken up today on I.A. -1, an application for urgent hearing having been filed by the opposite parties for consideration of applications filed by Dr. Vivek Tripathi, Director, Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre and Dr. Prabha Desikan, Director-Incharge, Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre, praying for reconsideration of order passed by this Commission on10.11.2016, whereby right to file reply by the said opposite parties has been closed.

Since the version of the opposite parties was not filed within the statutory period of 45 days, the right to file reply has been closed.  Now along with the applications, opposite parties have filed replies and learned counsel submits that the matter be re-considered, since the replies were to be prepared by their Central Office situated at Delhi, therefore, they could not be filed within the prescribed time.

It is settled by the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and another IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC) that the consumer fora and the State Commissions have no power to review or recall their own orders.

In this view of the matter, we have no option but to reject this application.  The order passed on 10.11.2016 cannot be recalled and replies cannot be taken on record at this stage. 

Accordingly, the applications filed by the opposite parties are dismissed.

                    List for final hearing on 26.05.2017 as already fixed in the case.

3.       On 18.12.2016, the appellants prayed before State Commission to file reply to the consumer complaint No. 30 of 2016 alongwith affidavit of Dr. Vivek Tripathi stating the circumstances for delay.  The State Commission closed the rights to file reply on 10.3.2017, therefore, the appellants were left remediless and constrained to file the instant appeal. 

4.       It is true that in accordance with the section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the written version has to be filed before the concerned Fora, within the extended period of 45 days.  The matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on a number of occasions already.  In an order passed on 04.02.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 10941 – 10942 / 2013 “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold-storage Private Limited” [as reported in 15(6) RAG 551]” it was ordered that the written version, which was filed beyond the permissible period, shall not be allowed to be taken on record.  However, as per order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.02.2016 in Civil Appeal No. 1083-1084/2016, Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Grand Venezia Buyers Association, and allied matters”, the matter stands referred to a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and it is still under their consideration.  In the meantime, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order “Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s Mampee Timbers & Hardwares Pvt. ltd. & Anr. [Civil Appeal D. No. 2365 of 2017 decided 10.02.2017]”, in which, it has been stated as follows:

“We consider it appropriate to direct that pending decision of the larger bench, it will be open to the concerned Fora to accept the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time of 45 days in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment of costs, and to proceed with the matter.”

5.       Considering the position stated above and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that it shall be in the interest of justice, if the BMHRC is allowed to file their written version before the State Commission subject to payment of suitable cost to the respondent.  It is ordered, therefore, that the said written version may be filed before the State Commission within six weeks from today, subject to payment of cost of ₹5,000/- to the respondent/complainant before filing of the said written version.  The State Commission shall accept the written version, only after being satisfied that the cost has been duly paid to the respondent/complainant.  Thereafter, the State Commission may proceed further for the disposal of the consumer complaint in accordance with law.  The appeal stands allowed in above terms.

6.       Both the parties to appear before State Commission for further proceedings on 10.5.2018.