At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioners: Girija Wadhwa, Advocate along with S.C. Kakkar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Sajad Sultan, Advocate.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that document RI filed before District Forum is already on record, which is true.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on IA No. 544/2014.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission in paragraph 16 of impugned order observed that Dr. Baljeet, who attested R1 was friend of complainant whereas, he was not friend, so, she wants to place affidavit of Dr. Baljeet on record. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that it was never pleaded by complainant that Dr. Baljeet is friend of complainant, but only mentioned that it was attested by Dr. Baljeet. When learned State Commission has passed impugned order on the assumption that Dr. Baljeet was friend of complainant, who was exsplained about all risks, I deem it appropriate to allow aforesaid IA NO. 544/2014 and take Dr. Baljeet’s affidavit on record.
4. As far affidavit of Dr. Jitender is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press her IA to the extent of taking Dr. Jitender’s affidavit on record.
5. Consequently, IA No. 544/20144 is partly allowed and affidavit of Dr. Baljeety is taken on record.
6. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that if Dr. Baljeet’s affidavit is taken on record, matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission as respondent never pleaded that Dr. Baljeet was friend or relative of complainant. Learned Counsel for the respondent has no objection in remanding the matter. As learned State Commission has based its order on the assumption that Dr. Baljeet was friend of complainant which has been negatived by Dr. Baljeet in this affidavit, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for deciding appeal afresh after giving an opportunity of being rebuttal to respondent.
7. Consequently, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 17.9.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 749 of 2008 – Fortis Health Care Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Subhash Chander Kakkar is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide appeal afresh after considering affidavit of Dr. Baljeet along with other evidence filed by the respondent in rebuttal to this affidavit and after giving an opportu
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nity of being heard to the parties. 8. Parties are directed to appear before learned State Commission on 11.1.2016. Office is directed to send original affidavit of Dr. Baljeet to the learned State Commission after keeping photocopy of this affidavit.