Ms. Geeta Wadhwa Vs. Bhatia Global Hospital and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 15 - case referred: 1991 (1) cpj 653. comparative citation: 2003 (3) cpj 1lokeshwar prasad, president: 1. the present appeal, filed by the appellant, under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act), is directed against order dated 17.12.2002, passed by district forum-iii, janakpuri, new delhi in complaint case no. 512/2002 entitled — ms. geeta wadhwa v. bhatia global hospital and anr. 2. the facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. the appellant ms. geeta wadhwa, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, had filed a complaint under section 12 of the act, before the district forum claiming damages to the extent of rs. 2,00,000/-, refund of the amount of rs. 19,320/- paid to the respondents and another sum of rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. 3. the above mentioned complaint, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of a statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant before the district forum on 17.12.2002. 4. feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 15 of the act. 5. we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. on the basis of documents/material on record, it is not in dispute that on 17.12.2002, the appellant ms. geeta wadhwa had made a statement to the following effect : “i have withdrawn the complaint with the permission to file a criminal case in the competent court.” 6. not only this, the learned counsel for the appellant, mr. pankaj sharma, on the same date also made a statement before the district forum praying for the withdrawal of the complaint with permission to approach the proper forum/court. on the basis of the above statement made before the district forum, the district forum dismissed the complaint as withdrawn giving the liberty to the appellant to file a complaint before the proper forum/court as per law. the operative portion of the order, being impugned in the present proceedings, reads as under : “later on mr. pankaj sharma, advocate for the complainant, prays for the withdrawal of complaint with permission to file before the proper forum/court. the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file before the proper forum/court as per law.” 7. during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the then counsel for the appellant mr. pankaj sharma was compelled to make the above statement before the district forum. it is further stated by him that the learned district forum has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant, vide impugned order, discarding all mandatory provisions of the act and also the principles of natural justice. in support of his above contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the state commission, haryana in case executive engineer, operation h.s.e.b., hissar v. dr. chander bhan, reported as i (1991) cpj 653. 8. in our opinion, the above contention, being advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, is devoid of substance. as regards, the contention that the counsel for the appellant was compelled to make the statement withdrawing the complaint, the position is that there is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that the then counsel for the appellant was compelled to make such a statement. no affidavit of mr. pankaj sharma, advocate, who made the statement, has been filed. in the absence of any such document on record, it is somewhat difficult to accept the contention now being advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the then counsel for the appellant mr. pankaj sharma was compelled to make statement before the district forum withdrawing the complaint filed by the appellant. as regards the second contention, being advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the dismissal of the complaint is against the mandatory provisions of the act and principles of natural justice, the same too is devoid of merit because when the counsel for the appellant had made a statement with the prayer that the complaint, filed by the appellant, be dismissed as withdrawn, the learned district forum was fully justified in acceding to that request made by the learned counsel for the appellant and no fault can be found with the same. as regards the decision of the haryana state commission in case executive engineer, operation h.s.e.b., hissar (supra), the position is that there can be no two opinions in so far as the proposition of law laid down in the above said decision is concerned, but the same in the given facts, in no way helps the cause of the appellant as the same is distinguishable on facts. in view of the position explained above, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. the same merits dismissal. accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no orders as to costs. appeal dismissed.