w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Max Super Specialty Hospital, Authorized representative, Sandeep Dogra, Vice President Operations. & Another v/s Rajeev Kumar Singh & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- MAX INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L85100PB2015PLC039155

Company & Directors' Information:- MAX INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100PB2015PLC039155

Company & Directors' Information:- MAX CORPORATION LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U24231PB1996PLC018766

Company & Directors' Information:- MAX INDIA LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U24232PB1982PLC004841

Company & Directors' Information:- OPERATIONS O A (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071631

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJEEV HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100TN2015PTC101049

Company & Directors' Information:- P G MAX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22219KL2012PTC031856

Company & Directors' Information:- MAX I. LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PB2016PLC045450

Company & Directors' Information:- SUPER CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19112UP2013PLC061542

Company & Directors' Information:- SANDEEP RAJEEV AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U37120UP1996PTC019827

    First Appeal No.29 of 2015

    Decided On, 27 April 2016

    At, Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. J.S. KLAR
    By, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. H.S. GURAM
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellants: Parminder Kaur, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Somesh Gupta, Advocate. R2, Ex-parte



Judgment Text

J.S Klar, Presiding Judicial Member:

1. Aggrieved by order dated 30.10.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mohali (in short, the District Forum), the appellants of this appeal (the opposite parties no.1 and 2 in the complaint) have directed this appeal against order dated 30.10.2014 of District Forum Mohali setting appellants as exparte in the proceedings. Respondent no.1 of this appeal is complainant and respondent no.2 is proforma opposite party in the complaint and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2. The complainant has instituted complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that complainant was diagnosed as a case of multiple Left Renal Calculus having severe pain in the left flank associated with nausea and vomiting on and off at Alchemist Hospital Panchkula. He was admitted in the said hospital on 06.08.2013 and the procedure was abandoned due to failure of C-ARM machine and he was discharged to be operated at a later stage. PCNL (Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy) is the preferred technique for treating large size stones, which are present near the pelvic region. This technique requires to have the detailed imaging to allow the surgeon to assess the stone in fine detail regarding its relationship to the kidney and nearby structures. The complainant continued to perform his normal routine after discharge from Alchemist Hospital Panchkula. On 01.03.2014, he again developed severe abdomen pain followed by nausea and vomiting and was taken to JP Hospital Zirakpur, where he was diagnosed B/L Renal Calculi with left Hydronephrosis on basis of medical examination and was also advised for left PCNL. The complainant alleged medical negligence on the part of OPs with regard to his above treatment. The complainant has, thus, filed complaint for directing the OPs to pay Rs.4,50,000/- for medical negligence.

3. The District Forum admitted the complaint and sent notice to OPs, vide order dated 30.09.2014. Notice was issued for 30.10.2014. On 30.10.2014, OPs no.1 and 2 were absent despite service and they were set exparte and registered cover of OP no.3 was not received back, which was awaited for 17.11.2014. On 17.11.2014 on the basis of presumptive service, OP no.3 was set exparte. The order dated 30.10.2014, setting OP no.1 and 2 exparte is challenged in this appeal by OPs no.1 and 2 before us.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.

5. From perusal of record of District Forum, OPs no.1 and 2 were set exparte having been served and thereafter case was posted for exparte evidence of the complainant. The complainant led exparte evidence in the complaint before District Forum and closed the exparte evidence on 22.12.2014. The exparte order against OPs no.1 and 2 have been challenged in this case by them, as appellants.

6. From perusal of record and hearing respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we have come to this conclusion that complaint has not yet been decided by District Forum. The complaint was pending for 29.12.2014 before District Forum. The OPs no.1 and 2 filed this appeal before this Commission on 06.01.2015 challenging order dated 30.10.2014. We find that it would be appropriate if OPs no.1 and 2 now appellants are allowed to join the proceedings of the case from the date of filing the complaint. The complainant can be duly compensated with costs for the delay and expenses, which complainant has incurred in this regard. So taking an overall view of the matter of the case, we order that exparte order dated 30.10.2014 of District Forum against OPs no.1 and 2 now appellants be set aside on payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs by them to the complainant/Rajeev Kumar Singh of this case. The appeal filed by appellants is accepted and order of District Forum dated 30.10.2014 be set aside and case is remanded to District Forum with direction to allow OPs no.1 and 2, the present appellants, to join the proceedings w.e.f. date of filing the complaint, provided they pay the amount of Rs.25,000/- as costs to the complainant before Distric

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t Forum. The record of District Forum be returned forthwith, so as to reach there well before 04.07.2016. The parties are directed to appear before District Forum on the date fixed i.e. 04.07.2016. 7. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 26.04.2016 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules. 8. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
O R