1.       The complainant had filed complaint No. 134 of 2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24, Parganas at Alipore (for short, ‘District Forum’) alleging medical negligence on the part of OPs 1 to 4 and prayed for compensation of Rs.5,99,000/-.  OP-1 entered appearance before the District Forum through its counsel on 12.06.2014 and the matter was adjourned till 8.7.2014 for filing the written version.  Several adjournments were granted but no written version was filed by OPs.  The District Forum by order dated 5.8.2014 had fixed the matter for ex parte hearing after rejecting the application of OP-1 to 4 seeking time to file written version.  Therefore, OP had moved a revision petition No. 112 of 2014 before the State Commission.  The State Commission allowed the prayer of the OPs vide order dated 7.8.2015.  In the meantime, as per the administrative order of the State Government, the jurisdiction of District Forum was changed.  Therefore, the cases have been transferred from Alipore District Forum to Baruipur District Form, consequently, the instant complaint got transferred from Alipore to Baruipur District Forum.  According to the petitioner, at no point of time, notice was served upon them that the said complaint had been transferred to Baruipur, therefore, OP-1 to 4 were not in a position to trace the complaint.  Moreover, the petitioners had decided to change the advocate on record.  Under those circumstances, since 13.10.2015 to 18.08.2016, OPs 1 to 4 could not appear before the District Forum, Baruipur and failed to take proper steps to contest the complaint.  Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing before the District Forum, Baruipur on 18.08.2016 wherein the District Forum fixed the matter on 20.09.2016 for ex parte hearing.  On 20.09.2016, the advocate for OPs appeared before the District Forum at Baruipur alongwith written version, but the District Forum refused to record the appearance of learned counsel for OPs 1 to 4.

2.       I have perused the impugned order of the State Commission and the proceedings took before both the District Forum, Alipore and Baruipur.  The State Commission has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (Pvt. Ltd.), Civil Appeal No. 10941-10942 of 2013, which categorically held that the Forum cannot grant time beyond 45 days, and therefore, the State Commission did not grant time to the OPs to file written version beyond 45 days under Section 13(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismissed the revision petition No. 192 of 2016..

3.       So far as the legal position is concerned, in my view, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in their order passed on 04.12.2015 in the Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage case held that written version could be filed only within the time prescribed under Section 13(2) of the Act.  At the moment, the issue stands referred to a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 1083-1084/2016-Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Grand Venezia Buyers Association and allied matters on 11.02.2016.  In the meantime, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2990 of 2017 decided on 10.02.2017, the time for filing the written version can be extended in the meantime ‘on suitable terms’ in appropriate case.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court had 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.”

4.       While it is appreciated, the concerned State Commission has dismissed the revision petition to condone the delay in filing written statement.  It is surely accepted to consider just cause as also the fact whether the petition in the event of delay, not being condoned, amounts to injustice and unfairplay.  It is the case of alleged medical negligence and allegations contained therein are with regard to medical services rendered by the petitioners/OPs 1 to 4 for appropriate adjudication.  In the interest of justice, written version of OPs shall be allowed.  If we restrain the OP/doctors to produce their defence, it will not be fair for ends of justice.  In this instant case, the petitioner/OP was not aware of transfer of his complaint from Alipore to Baruipur, therefore, there was delay.  In view of this, we are of the view that the opportunity to file a written version shall be given to OP.

5.         On the basis of foregoing discussion, the revision petition is allowed and OPs 1 to 4 are permitted to file their written statement before the District Forum, within four weeks from today, subject to payment of ₹20,000/- as cost to the complainant by the petitioner herein, within four weeks from today.  The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 03.07.2018 for further proceedings.  The District Forum shall verify the compliance of this order before the proceeding further.