Dr.
J.J. Merchant & Ors Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi [2002] Insc 337 (12 August 2002)
M.B.
Shah, Bisheshwar Prasad Singh & H.K. Sema. Shah, J.
Miscellaneous
Petition No.53 of 2000 was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (hereinafter referred to as "National Commission"), New
Delhi in Original Petition No.252 of 1993 by the appellants - doctors praying
that complaint filed for alleged medical negligence be either dismissed as
according to them complicated questions of law and facts arise which can best
be decided by the Civil Court or in the alternative the proceeding be stayed
during the pendency of criminal prosecution pending against them in criminal
court at Mumbai. That application was rejected by the Commission. Hence, this
appeal.
In the
present case, complainant respondent filed Original Petition before the
National Commission on 26.8.1993 alleging that his son aged 21 years was
admitted to the Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai on 4.8.1992 for operation
of slip disc as he was suffering from backache. It was stated that before that,
he had returned from USA in the month of June, 1992 after
obtaining degree in Business Management. He died on 29th August, 1992 in the hospital itself.
For
this, he attributed medical negligence.
Before
filing complaint before the National Commission, the complainant had also filed
criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai for the offences
punishable under Sections 304-A/201 and 203 of Indian Penal Code. That
prosecution is also pending. The Commission rejected the application by holding
that there is no universal rule of law that during the pendency of criminal
proceedings, civil proceedings must invariably be stayed.
The
Commission also observed that there was unexplained delay in moving such
application at this stage and, therefore, case requires to be decided at the
earliest.
In
this appeal, the Court issued notice on 7th December, 2001 and thereafter on 28th January, 2002 passed the following order:
"It
is contended by Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr. R.F. Nariman, the learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenors
that some guidelines will have to be laid down which are more precise in nature
with regard to the type of cases which the Consumer Forum will not entertain,
keeping in mind the decision of this Court in Indian Medical Association v.
V.P. Shanta [(1995) 6 SCC 651] in paragraph 37. List after six weeks on a
non-miscellaneous day before a Bench of Three Judges.
In the
meantime, there will be no stay of proceedings." Learned senior counsel
Mr. Nariman first submitted that considering –
(a) the
inordinate delay in disposal of the complaint,
(b) complicated
question of law and facts involved in this case depending upon medical experts
opinion summary procedure is not proper remedy for deciding such issues, hence
complainant should be directed to approach the Civil Court.
Reasons
for delay as submitted by the Learned Counsel for the parties:
a)
Delay in making appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Forum or
Commission including National Commission;
b) Not
providing adequate infrastructure;
c)
Delay because of heavy workload and there is only one Bench of the National
Commission or the State Commissions for deciding complaints;
d)
Delay in procedure;
Before
dealing with reasons for delay, the first question which requires consideration
is whether delay in disposal of cases by the Consumer Forum or Commission would
be a ground for directing the complainant to approach Civil Court? In the present case, there is
inordinate delay of about nine years in disposal of complaint. However, if this
contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted, apart
from the fact that it would be unjust, the whole purpose and object of enacting
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') would
be frustrated. One of the main objects of the Act is to provide speedy and
simple redressal to consumer disputes and for that a quasi-judicial machinery
is sought to be set up at the district, State and Central level. These
quasi-judicial bodies are required to observe the principles of natural justice
and have been empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award,
wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance
of the orders given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been provided.
The
object and purpose of enacting the Act is to render simple, inexpensive and
speedy remedy to the consumers with complaints against defective goods and
deficient services and the benevolent piece of legislation intended to protect
a large body of consumers from exploitation would be defeated. Prior to the
Act, consumers were required to approach the Civil Court for securing justice for the wrong done to them and it is
known fact that decision in suit takes years. Under the Act, consumers are
provided with an alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy. As such, the
Consumer forum is an alternative forum established under the Act to discharge the
functions of a Civil
Court. Therefore,
delay in disposal of the complaint would not be a ground for rejecting the
complaint and directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court.
Further,
while rejecting the similar contention where the complainant was directed to
approach State Commission or District Forum, this Court in Charan Singh v.
Healing Touch Hospital and Others [(2000) 7 SCC 668] observed that appellant
ought not to have been condemned unheard after waiting for six long years; the
legislative intent, for enacting the legislation, of a speedy summary trial, to
settle the claim of the complainant (consumers) has been respected in breach.
The spirit of the benevolent legislation has been overlooked and its object
frustrated by non-suiting the appellant in the manner in which it has been done
by the National Consumer Forum. It was further observed that "the Consumer
Forums must take expeditious steps to deal with the complaints filed before
them and not keep them pending for years. It would defeat the object of the
Act, if summary trials are not disposed of expeditiously by the forums at the
District, State or National levels. Steps in this direction are required to be
taken in the right earnest".
Learned
counsel for the appellant next contended that the present case involves
complicated question of facts for which experts including doctors would be
required to be examined and their cross- examination may be necessary,
therefore also, the National Commission ought to have directed the complainant to
approach the Civil
Court. For this
purpose, the reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Indian
Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and others [(1995) 6 SCC 651 para 37] and
it is submitted that in the present case complicated question of fact involving
negligence of doctors is to be decided and, therefore, complainant should be
directed to approach the Civil Court. In the aforesaid case, the Court rejected
the said contention and observed thus:
"..It
has been urged that proceedings involving negligence in the matter of rendering
services by a medical practitioner would raise complicated questions requiring
evidence of experts to be recorded and that the procedure which is followed for
determination of consumer disputes under the Act is summary in nature involving
trial on the basis of affidavits and is not suitable for determination of
complicated questions. It is no doubt true that sometimes complicated questions
requiring recording of evidence of experts may arise in a complaint about deficiency
in service based on the ground of negligence in rendering medical services by a
medical practitioner; but this would not be so in all complaints about
deficiency in rendering services by a medical practitioner. There may be cases
which do not raise such complicated questions and the deficiency in service may
be due to obvious faults which can be easily established such as removal of the
wrong limb or the performance of an operation on the wrong patient or giving
injection of a drug to which the patient is allergic without looking into the
out-patient card containing the warning {as in Chin Keow v. Govt. of Malaysia
[(1967) 1 WLR 813 (PC)]} or use of wrong gas during the course of an anaesthetic
or leaving inside the patient swabs or other items of operating equipment after
surgery. One often reads about such incidents in the newspapers. The issues
arising in the complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the
procedure that is being followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies
and there is no reason why complaints regarding deficiency in service in such
cases should not be adjudicated by the Agencies under the Act. In complaints
involving complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the
complainant can be asked to approach the civil court for appropriate relief.
Section
3 of the Act which prescribes that the provisions of the Act shall be in
addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the
time being in force, preserves the right of the consumer to approach the civil
court for necessary relief. We are, therefore, unable to hold that on the
ground of composition of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies or on the
ground of the procedure which is followed by the said Agencies for determining
the issues arising before them, the service rendered by the medical
practitioners are not intended to be included in the expression 'service' as
defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.." In the aforesaid case, the Court
was dealing with a contention that services rendered by the medical
practitioners are not intended to be included in the expression
"service" as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. That contention
was negatived by the Court. Further from this decision, it is apparent that it
is within the discretion of the Commission to ask the complainant to approach
the civil court for appropriate relief in case complaint involves complicated
issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, which may delay the
proceeding. But the court has specifically held that issues arising in the
complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the procedure that is
being followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies.
Further,
under the Act the National Commission is required to be headed by a retired Judge
of this Court and the State Commission is required to be headed by a retired
High Court Judge. They are competent to decide complicated issues of law or
facts. Hence, it would not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of
experts is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the Civil Court.
It was
next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in
summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected
because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in
conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore,
merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have
summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach
the Civil Court. For trial to be just and
reasonable long drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the
litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be
kept in mind that legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple,
inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed
on such ground. It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary
trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are
required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards.
For this purpose, we would refer to the procedure prescribed under the Act for
disposal of the complaint.
"13.
Procedure on receipt of complaint
(1)
The District Forum shall, on receipt of a complaint, if it relates to any
goods,
(a)
refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint
directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or
such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the
District Forum;
(b)
where the opposite party on receipt of a complaint referred to him under clause
(a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or
fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the
District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute
in the manner specified in clauses (c) to (g);
(c) to
(g) .
(2)
the District Forum shall, if the complaint received by it under section 12 relates
to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-section (1) cannot
be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services, (a) refer a copy of
such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the
case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding
fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum;
(b)
where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to
him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the
complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within
the time given by the District forum, the District Forum shall proceed to
settle the consumer dispute,
(i) on
the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite
party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in
the complaint, or
(ii) on
the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant where the
opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within
the time given by the Forum.
(3) No
proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2)
shall be called in question in any court on the ground that principles of
natural justice have not been complied with.
(4)
For the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have the same powers
as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying
a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:
(i) the
summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and
examining the witness on oath;
(ii) the
discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as
evidence;
(iii) the
reception of evidence on affidavits;
(iv) the
requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the
appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source;
(v) issuing
of any commission for the examination of any witness; and
(vi) any
other matter which may be prescribed."
The
National Commission or the State Commission is empowered to follow the said
procedure. From the aforesaid Section it is apparent that on receipt of the
complaint, the opposite party is required to be given notice directing him to
give his version of the case within a period of 30-days or such extended period
not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the
Commission. For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not giving
more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the version of the
case is required to be adhered. If this is not adhered, the legislative mandate
of disposing of the cases within three or five months would be defeated.
For
this purpose, even the Parliament has amended Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of
Civil Procedure, which reads thus:
"Rule-1:
Written statement.The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of
service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence :
Provided
that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said
period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day,
as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but
which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of
summons." Under this Rule also, there is a legislative mandate that
written statement of defence is to be filed within 30 days. However, if there
is a failure to file such written statement within stipulated time, the court
can at the most extend further period of 60 days and no more.
Under
the Act, the legislative intent is not to give 90 days of time but only maximum
45 days for filing the version by the opposite party.
Therefore,
the aforesaid mandate is required to be strictly adhered to.
Further,
under Section 13(4) of the Act, the Commission or the Forum is empowered to
exercise the powers vested in Civil Court
for discovery and production of any document, the reception of evidence on
affidavit and of issuing of any commission qua examination of any witness.
In
view of the aforesaid provisions, the Commission can certainly refer to Order
VII Rule 14 which provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or
relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he
shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in the Court when
the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document
and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. It appears that this mandatory
requirement is not followed and thereafter, there is complaint of delay in disposal.
Similarly, in case of written statement under Order VIII Rule I-A, defendant is
required to produce the documents relied upon by him when written submission is
presented. The Commission can always insist on production of all documents
relied upon by the parties along with the complaint and the defence version.
Further,
in the present case, the complainant's case is based upon the negligence of the
Doctors in giving treatment to the deceased. Whether there was negligence or
not on the part of the concerned Doctors would depend upon facts alleged to and
in such a case there is no question of complicated question of law involved.
However,
it has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel that recording of
evidence of experts including doctors relied upon by the complainant would
consume much time and therefore also complainant should approach the Civil Court. As against this, learned counsel
for the complainant submitted that under the Act, Commission is required to
follow summary procedure. It may or may not examine the doctors or experts. It
may only rely upon the statements given by such doctors or experts.
It is
true that it is the discretion of the Commission to examine the experts if
required in appropriate matter. It is equally true that in cases where it is
deemed fit to examine experts, recording of evidence before a Commission may
consume time. The Act specifically empowers the Consumer Forums to follow the
procedure which may not require more time or delay the proceedings. Only
caution required is to follow the said procedure strictly. Under the Act, while
trying a complaint, evidence could be taken on affidavits [under Section 13(4)(iii)].
It also empowers such Forums to issue any Commission for examination of any
witness [under Section 13(4)(v)]. It is also to be stated that Rule 4 in Order
XVIII of C.P.C.
is
substituted which inter alia provides that in every case, the
examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof
shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for
evidence. It also provides that witnesses could be examined by the Court or the
Commissioner appointed by it. As stated above, the Commission is also empowered
to follow the said procedure.
Hence,
we do not think that there is any scope of delay in examination or
cross-examination of the witnesses. The affidavits of the experts including the
doctors can be taken as evidence.
Thereafter,
if cross-examination is sought for by the other side and the Commission finds
it proper, it can easily evolve a procedure permitting the party who intends to
cross-examine by putting certain questions in writing and those questions also
could be replied by such experts including doctors on affidavits. In case where
stakes are very high and still party intends to cross-examine such doctors or
experts, there can be video conferences or asking questions by arranging
telephone conference and at the initial stage this cost should be borne by the
person who claims such video conference. Further, cross- examination can be
taken by the Commissioner appointed by it at the working place of such experts
at a fixed time.
In any
case, for avoiding the delay the District Forum or Commissions can evolve a
procedure of levying heavy cost where adjournment is sought by a party on one
or the other ground. This would have its own impact on disposing the
complaints, appeals or revisions within the stipulated or reasonable time. For
avoiding delay in disposal of cases, the procedure and the time limit
prescribed under the Act and the Rules is required to be strictly adhered and
followed. If there is proper mind set to do so on the part of all concerned,
delay in disposal to a large extent could be avoided.
Learned
senior counsel Mr. Nariman and Mr. Chatterjee and Mr. Lalit (Amicus Curiae)
submitted that despite various directions given by this Court including the
decision given in Charan Singh's case (Supra), the District Forums, State
Commissions and National Commission remain flooded with number of complaints,
appeals and revisions and arrears is mounting. For delay, they unanimously
submitted that after enactment of the Act, appropriate steps are not taken by
the Government for ensuring that the National Commission as well as State
Forums can function properly. It is submitted that even if one Member is
appointed, other members of the Forum are not appointed. It is also pointed out
that on occasions there is no simultaneous appointment of the Members of the
Forum or the President so as to make it functional. In most of the cases, it is
their submission that even after appointment of the members, the forum is not
provided with necessary building and infrastructure.
It is
also pointed out that before the National Commission, as on 1st April 2002,
7582 matters were pending, which consisted of 1495 original petitions, 2330
first appeals and 3757 revision petitions. It is true that for disposal of
these many matters in a stipulated time limit as prescribed under the Act or
the Rules, one Bench may not be in a position to cope up with the work.
For
reducing the arrears and for seeing that complaints, appeals and revisions are
decided speedily and within stipulated time, we hope that President of National
Commission would draw the attention of the Government for taking appropriate
actions within stipulated time and see that object and purpose of the Act is
not frustrated.
Further,
National Commission has administrative control over the State Commissions and
District Forums as provided under Section 24-B, which reads thus:
"24B.
Administrative Control.(1) The National Commission shall have administrative
control over all the State Commissions in the following matters, namely (i)
calling for periodical return regarding the institution, disposal pendency of
cases;
(ii)
issuance of instructions regarding adoption of uniform procedure in the hearing
of matters, prior service of copies of documents produced by one party to the
opposite parties, furnishing of English translation of judgments written in any
language, speedy grant of copies of documents;
(iii) generally
overseeing the functioning of the State Commissions or the District Fora to
ensure that the objects and purposes of the Act are best served without in any
way interfering with their quasi-judicial freedom.
(2)
The State Commission shall have administrative control over all the District Fora
within its jurisdiction in all matters referred to in sub-section (1)." It
can be hoped that the National Commission would ensure its best to see that
District Forums, State Commissions and National Commission can discharge its
functions as efficiently and speedily as contemplated by the provisions of the
Act. The National Commission has administrative control over all the State
Commissions inter alia for issuing of instructions regarding adoption of uniform
procedure in hearing of the matters etc. It would have also administrative
control in overseeing that the functions of the State Commissions or District
Forums are discharged in furtherance of objects and purposes of the Act in the
best manner.
It is to
be stated that the grievances of the learned counsel for the parties is sought
to be taken care by the proposed amendment in the Legislation. For this, we
would refer to the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2002, which was
introduced in Rajya Sabha and was passed on 11th March, 2002. The statement of objects and reasons of the said Bill
reads thus:
"The
enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was an important milestone in
the history of the consumer movement in the country. The Act was made to
provide for the better protection and promotion of consumer rights through the
establishment of Consumer Councils and quasi-judicial machinery. Under the Act,
consumer disputes redressal agencies have been set up throughout the country
with the District Forum at the district level, State Commission at the State
level and National Commission at the National level to provide simple,
inexpensive and speedy justice to the consumers with complaints against
defective goods, deficient services and unfair and restrictive trade practices.
The Act was also amended in the years 1991 and 1993 to make it more effective
and purposeful.
2.
Although the consumer disputes redressal agencies have to a considerable
extent, served the purpose for which they were created, the disposal of cases
has not been fast enough. Several bottlenecks and shortcomings have also come
to light in the implementation of various provisions of the Act. With a view to
achieving quicker disposal of consumer complaints by the consumer disputes redressal
agencies securing effective implementation of their orders, widening the scope
of some of the provisions of the Act to make it more effective, removing
various lacunae in the Act and streamlining the procedures, amendments are
proposed in the Act, which inter alia, include the following, namely:
(i)
exclusion of the jurisdiction of the consumer disputes redressal Agencies in
respect of claims for which corresponding provisions in the special laws exist
for the protection of interests of consumers;
(ii) provisions
for creation of Benches of the National Commission and State Commissions as
well as holding of circuit benches of these Commissions;
(iii) prescribing
the period within which complaints are to be admitted, notices are to be issued
to opposite party and the complaints are to be decided. Similar provisions have
been proposed also in respect of appeals;
(iv) no
adjournment to be ordinarily allowed and allowed where, a speaking order giving
reasons would be made.
(v) .
(xvii) " Further proposed amendments inter alia provides that after sub-
section (1) of Section 20, sub-section (1A)(i) and (ii) shall be inserted,
which reads thus:
"(1A)(i)
The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National Commission may be
exercised by Benches thereof.
(ii) A
Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the
President may deem fit." Similar provision is introduced for the State
Commission by inserting sub-section (1B)(i) and (ii) after sub-section (1) of
Section 16, which reads thus:
"(1B)(i)
The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised
by Benches thereof.
(ii) A
Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the
President may deem fit." Therefore, the President of the National Commission
or the State Commission would have power to form the Benches for disposal of
the pending cases. It would certainly depend upon the workload and the time
frame contemplated under the Act for disposal of such cases.
Proposed
Bill also envisages insertion of Sub-section 3A in Section 13 of the Act, which
reads as under:
"(3A)
Every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall
be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of notice by opposite party where the complaint does not require
analysis or testing of commodities and within five months if it requires
analysis or testing of commodities:
Provided
that no adjournment shall be ordinarily granted by the District Forum unless
sufficient cause is shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been
recorded in writing by the Forum:
Provided
further that the District Forum shall make such orders as to the costs
occasioned by the adjournment as may be provided in the regulations made under
this Act." From the wording of the aforesaid Section, it is apparent that
there is legislative mandate to the District Forum or the Commissions to
dispose of the complaints as far as possible within prescribed time of three
months by adhering strictly to the procedure prescribed under the Act. The
opposite party has to submit its version within 30 days from the date of the
receipt of the complaint by him and Commission can give at the most further 15
days for some unavoidable reasons to file its version.
Learned
counsel for the parties submitted that in the present case, there is a delay of
more than nine years in disposal of the complaint. For that purpose, they made
a grievance that matters are repeatedly adjourned on one or other ground
without following the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Act and Rule
14 of the Consumer Protection Rules. The proposed amendment also requires that
no adjournment shall ordinarily be granted and in any case if adjournment is
required to be granted, reasons for the same are required to be recorded.
Further, to discourage granting of repeated adjournments, if National
Commission frames necessary regulations heavy cost could be awarded. There is
also proposal to add Section 12(3), which reads thus "12(3) On receipt of
a complaint made under sub- section (1), the District Forum may, by order,
allow the complaint to be proceeded with or rejected:
Provided
that a complaint shall not be rejected under this sub-section unless an
opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant:
Provided
further that the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided
within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was received."
It is apparent that the aforesaid proposed amendment in the Act mandates the
District Forum or the Commission to decide the admissibility of the complaint
within 21 days from the date on which the complaint was received by it. This
procedure is required to be adhered so that after lapse of some time, objection
with regard to maintainability of the complaint is not required to be decided.
Other
proposed amendments, such as, Sections 22C and 22D, which deal with Circuit
Benches and filling up of vacancies in the office of President of District
Forum, State Commission or of the National Commission, as the case may be, is
not required to be referred to. However, we would mention that Section 30A,
which is proposed to be inserted, empowers the Commission to frame regulations
with the approval of the Central Government and sub- section (2) empowers the
Commission to frame regulations for making provisions for the cost of
adjournment of any proceeding before the District Forum, the State Commission
or the National Commission.
From
the proposed amendment in the Act, it is apparent that Parliament is alive to
the problems faced by the consumers and the consumer forums and, therefore,
further directions are not required to be given.
However,
apart from the contemplated legislative action, it is expected that the
Government would also take appropriate steps in providing proper infrastructure
so that the Act is properly implemented and the legislative purpose of
providing alternative, efficacious, speedy, inexpensive remedy to the consumers
is not defeated or frustrated.
Similar
action is also expected from the National Commission as well as State
Commissions. Hence, for avoiding delay in disposal of complaints within
prescribed period, National Commission is required to take appropriate steps
including:
(a) By
exercise of Administrative control, it can be seen that competent persons are
appointed as Members on all levels so that there may not be any delay in
composition of the Forum or the Commission for want of Members;
(b) It
would oversee that time limit prescribed for filing defence version and
disposal of complaints is strictly adhered to;
(c) It
would see that complaint as well as defence version should be accompanied by
documents and affidavits upon which parties intend to rely;
(d) In
cases where cross-examination of the persons who have filed affidavits is
necessary, suggested questions of cross-examination be given to the persons who
have tendered their affidavits and reply may be also on affidavits;
(e) In
cases where Commission deems it fit to cross- examine the witnesses in person, video
conference or telephonic conference at the cost of person who so applies could
be arranged or cross-examination could be through a Commission. This procedure
would be helpful in cross-examination of experts, such as, Doctors.
In the
result, with the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs. IA Nos.1 to 4 do not require any further
consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.
Before
parting with the judgment, we would appreciate the assistance rendered by the
learned counsel for the parties and Amicus Curiae.
Back
