Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/66/2023

CLOUDNINE HOSPITAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRIYANKA RANI - Opp.Party(s)

KARNESH VERMA

04 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	66 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	18.04.2023
Date of Decision	:	04.05.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cloudnine Hospital C/o Kids Clinic India Limited, Chandigarh.

….Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

Versus

1]       Priyanka Rani W/o Sh. Nishant, Flat No.B-7, HSIIDC Apartments, Sector-14, Panchkula, Haryana.

...Respondent/Complainant.

2]       Dr. Monica Agarwal C/o Utsav Gynae Clinic, 5177, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

3]       Institute of Reproduction and Child Care (IRCC), Site No.3, Sector-17, Panchkula, Haryana.

...Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3.

 

 BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

               MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY :-    

 

Sh. Karnesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the opposite party No.2 – Cloudnine Hospital (appellant herein), against order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), vide which the right of the appellant to file written version has been struck off. The said order reads thus:-

          “Vakalatnama and written version to the complaint on behalf of OP No. 1 filed. Copy be supplied.

          Memo of appearance on behalf of OP No. 2.

          As per office tracking report of notice of OP No. 2 item delivery confirmed on 22.11.2022, since the period of 45 days have already elapsed and OP No. 2 has failed to file written version to complaint within stipulated period of 45 days from date of receipt of the notice by OPs. Hence in view of the  principle of law of laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2016 SC 86,  the right to file written version by OP No. 2 is struck off by orders as Distt. Commission has no power to grant more time than 45 days in total from the date of receipt of notice by the OP. Similar view is taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vs. Manisha Bhargava and Another, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1240 of 2021, decided on 11.02.2021,.

          Vakalatnama on behalf of OP No. 2 be filed on the next date.

          As per office report, notice sent to OP No. 3 through speed post on 21.11.2022, has not been received back till today.

          Office has further reported that as per tracking report of OP No. 3 Item Delivery Confirmed on 22.11.2022.

          Office report seen. OP No. 3 has not turned up despite of proper service which has also been confirmed through track consignment report. Hence, OP No. 3 is proceeded against ex-parte.

          To come up on 18.04.2023 for filing replication to the written version of OP No. 1.”

 

2]                It has been stated in the appeal that Counsel for the appellant made specific submission before the District Commission that the appellant has not received a proper copy of the complaint and in fact, several pages from the complaint itself were missing. It was also submitted that in the absence of proper copy, the appellant could not file a comprehensive reply but the District Commission did not pay any heed to the prayer made by the Counsel without adhering to principle of audi alteram partem and fair trial. It has further been stated that the impugned order falls foul of Regulation 10(5) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. It has further been stated that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical and arbitrary manner.

3]                After hearing the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and going through the material available on record, we find no infirmity or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission. Perusal of record transpires that as per the tracking report qua the notice sent to the appellant (opposite party No.2) by the District Commission, the said notice was duly delivered to the appellant at the given address on 22.11.2022. It is not the case of the appellant that its address given in the complaint is not correct or it had shifted to some other address. From 22.11.2022, the date on which the appellant acquired knowledge of pendency of complaint, the appellant was having sufficient time up-to 05.01.2023, i.e. a period of 45 days for filing reply but it did not file the same for the reasons best known to it. Had the copy of the compliant been legible or complete, the appellant could have immediately approached the District Commission and obtain fresh one. The plea now raised that the copy of complaint received was not legible or some of its pages were missing, thus, seemed to be an afterthought. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that District Fora has no power to extend the time for filing reply to the complaint beyond the total period of 45 days. Therefore, in our concerted view, the District Commission rightly debarred the appellant from filing reply beyond the period of 45 days. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the District Commission.

4]                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed at the preliminary stage with no orders as to costs. Miscellaneous Application, if any, stand disposed of having rendered infructuous.

5]                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

6]                File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

04.05.2023.

(RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

Ad