1. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Etawah (for short, the District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (for short, the State Commission), the Petitioner, Dr.Sanjay Bansal filed Revision Petition No. 2525/2019 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against Md. Akram (for short, Respondent No.1/ Complainant) & Others (for short, Respondent Nos.2 and 3). The Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant, Md. Akram being Consumer Complaint No. 77 of 2013 before the District Forum was allowed. The relevant portion of the Order dated 28.01.2016 is reproduced as under:-

“In this case, it is apparently clear that the patient was kept admitted for several hours without any diagnosis, and injections and medicines were given. In our view, this could not be anything else apart from medical negligence. In the hospital situated at Agra, several examination of the complainant was done and CT Scan was also done, blood was also examined. The Complainant was got benefitted at there and the life of the complainant got saved, and huge amount was spent in the treatment, which is obvious.

It would be proper that the complainant be provided from the OP No. 1, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- keeping in view the expenses incurred in the treatment, helter and skelter and inconvenience caused in nursing, Rs.50,000/- for mental pain caused to the Complainant and his family members, Rs.5000 /- for fees for Advocate, totalling amount of  Rs.1,05,000/-. OP No 2 and 3 are the workers of the clinic. They work for OP No. 1 therefore they do not owe personal liability, and accordingly the Complaint deserved to be admitted.”

2. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner was partly allowed by the State Commission vide Order dated 16.09.2019 with observations as under:-

“On the basis of above findings, Appeal is partly allowed, and while modifying the judgment and order of the District Forum, Appellant/OP is directed to pay Rs. 60,000/- compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum to the Respondent/ Complainant from the date of filing the Complaint till actual payment. Also, to pay to him the costs of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.”

3. As the District Forum and the State Commission have comprehensively addressed the facts of the case, which led to filing of the Complaint and passing of the Orders, I find it unnecessary to reiterate the same.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.  Nobody appeared for the Respondents.  Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were served by way of publication.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Complainant failed to produce any document or evidence which shows that the Complainant had ever received treatment from the Petitioner. The Respondent claims that wrong medicines were administered, resulting in an adverse reaction. However, in this respect, no medical evidence or report has been filed to substantiate this claim.
6. After going through the Orders of the State Commission and District Forum and on perusal of record, it is noticed that the Petitioner has reiterated contentions already presented before the State Commission and the District Forum, without introducing any new question of law left to be adjudicated.  The Respondent No.1 on 22.06.2012, suffering from fever, visited the clinic of Petitioner with his father.  The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 administered injections and prescribed medicines on the instructions of Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 was admitted, and treated for about four hours, but his condition worsened. The medicines were ineffective and he was referred elsewhere, charging Rs.2400/- for fees and medicine expenses. The father of Respondent No.1 took him to the District Hospital, Etawah, where doctors said the condition worsened due to a reaction to the previous medicines.  He was admitted to Jai Hospital in Agra for 11 days, incurring expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-, where doctors confirmed that the earlier treatment had caused lung complications and an infection.
7. The basis of the Order of the State Commission is that the Complainant, Md. Akram has filed affidavit of going to Petitioner’s hospital where he was given medicines and injections. The Petitioner has denied these claims. After going through the contradictory statements from both the parties, the State Commission placed greater weight on the Complainant’s version. The State Commission has given a detailed and well-reasoned order. There is no question of law involved, which requires any intervention of this Commission. No illegality is seen in the Order of the State Commission.
8. It is a well-established principle that this Commission has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of the District Forum and State Commission except for any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. I would like to cite the following Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard:

1. Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31 decided on 08.09.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“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 conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. Narendran Sons v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 decided on 07.03.2022, wherein it was held as under:

“The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it”

3. Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 decided on 18.03.2011, wherein it was held 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 exercise 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 of justice, 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 court 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 case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.” 

4. Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286) decided on 02.08.2016, wherein it was held as under:

 “23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reason” 

5. Sunil Kumar Maity v. SBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77 decided on 21.01.2022 , wherein it was held as under: 

“9. 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. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-Bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Revision Petition is dismissed and the Order of the State Commission is upheld.