Haryana

StateCommission

RP/133/2018

DEWAN DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINITA KUMAR TOMAR - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT SHARMA

28 May 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          Revision Petition No.133 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution: 16.10.2018

                                                 Date of Decision: 28.05.2019

 

1.      Dewan Diagnostic Centre, 614, Model Town, Opposite Ram Sharnam Asharam, Panipat-132103 through its Proprietor.

 

2.      Dr. Manisha  Dewan, Proprietor, Dewan Diagnostic Centre, 614, Model Town, Opposite Ram Sharnam Asharam, Panipat-132103.

 

…Petitioners

 

Versus

 

 Mrs. Vinita Kumari Tomar, aged 48 years, wife of Shri Sanjay Kumar Tomar, resident of House No.807, Sector 13-17, HUDA, Panipat through her SPA (husband) Shri Sanjay Kumar Tomar.

 

...Respondent

 

 

CORAM :  Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                  

 

Present:     Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for the petitioners.

         

O R D E R

 

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL)

 

          The petitioners, who are the opposite parties in the complaint titled “Mrs. Vinita Kumar Tomar Vs. Dewan Diagnostic Centre” have filed the instant revision under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein they have prayed that the aforementioned complaint be set aside alongwith all the subsequent proceedings initiated in the said complaint. 

2.      On the last date of hearing i.e. 26.02.2019, none had put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, who is the respondent herein.  However, in the interest of justice, the proceedings were adjourned for today.  The position remains the same, even today as none has put in appearance for the respondent/complainant. 

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the aforementioned complaint has since been dismissed in default by the learned District Forum, Panipat for want of prosecution on 24.05.2019 as the complainant did not put in appearance and when it was taken up at 4 P.M. and none had appeared, further wait was found to be not justified.

4.      Copy of the order dated 24.05.2019 downloaded by learned counsel for the petitioners from the website has been produced by him, which is taken on record.

5.      In view of the fact that the complaint itself stands dismissed in default for want of prosecution, the present revision petition has been rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of.

 

28.05.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan)  Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

U.K.