ANIRUDH AGGARWALversusDHARAM BIR BHATIA

                       [2009] 6 S.C.R. 914


A                     ANIRUDH AGGARWAL
                                v.
                      DHARAM BIR BHATIA
                 (Civil Appeal No. 2770 of 2009)

B
                         APRIL 15, 2009
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                        GANGULY, JJ.)

C       Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 12 - Medical
  negligence - Payment of compensation - Respondent filed
  claim petition alleging that appellant left treatment of his
  daughter's teeth midway - District Forum directed appellant
  to pay compensation of Rs.25,0001- and cost of Rs.3,0001- to
D respondent - State Commission held that no medical
  negligence was involved but directed that respondent be paid
  Rs.14,0001- i.e. the amount purportedly paid by him for
  treatment - Both respondent and appellant filed revision
  petition before National Commission - National Commission
E dismissed revision petition filed by appellant - On appeal,
  held: Prima facie, the National Commission was not justified
  in dismissing the revision petition filed by appellant - Its
  conclusions that the forums below had recorded concurrent       •
  finding about the appellant being negligent and not treating
F the respondent's daughter is contrary to the conclusion
  recorded by the State Commission - Hence, revision petition
  of the appellant directed to be heard along with the revision
  petition filed by respondent.

        Respondent filed claim petition before the District
G Consumer Protection Forum under s.12 of Consumer
    Protection Act, 1986 alleging that the appellant started
    treatment of his daughter's teeth but left the treatment
    midway which caused pain and agony to her. The District
    Forum directed the appellant to pay compensation of
H                              914
       ANIRUDH AGGARWAL v. DHARAM BIR BHATIA               915

.     Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent. Both/ A
      appellant and the respondent approached the State
      Commission. While the appellant questioned the legality
      of the direction for payment of compensation, the
      respondent sought for enhancement of the amount. After
      referring to the factual aspects, the State Commission B
      held that there was no medical negligence involved but
      directed that the respondent be paid Rs.14,000/- i.e. the
    . amount purportedly paid by him for treatment
         Both respondent and the appellant filed revision
    petition before the National Commission. By the C
    impugned order, the National Commission came to a
    conclusion that there was a concurrent finding by the
    District Forum as well as the State Commission that the
    appellant was negligent in not treating the daughter of
    respondent, and dismissed the revision petition filed by D
    appellant on the ground that medical negligence was writ
    large and no interference was called for.
         Disposing of the appeal, the Court
         HELD: Prima facie, the National Commission was not E
    justified in dismissing the revision petition filed by the
    appellant. Its conclusions that the forums below had
    recorded concurrent finding about the appellant being
    negligent and not treating the respondent's daughter is
    contrary to the conclusion recorded by the State F
    Commission. That being so, the impugned order passed
    by the National Commission is set aside and the revision
    petition of the appellant is directed to be heard along with
    the revision petition filed by the respondent. [Para 7] [918-
    E-F]
                                                                 G
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2770 of 2009.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.2008 of the
    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New
    Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1146 of 2008.                 H
    916         SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 6 S.C.R.


A         S.K. Dubey, K.B. Thakur and KV. Mohan for the Appellant.      "
          Respondent-In-Person.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
         2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the
    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short
    'the Commission') dismissing the petition which was filed by        ..
    the appellant seeking revision of the order of the State
c   Commission, Rajasthan (in short the ·State Commission')
       3. The respondent filed a claim petition before the District
  Consumer Protection Forum - Second, Jaipur (in short the
  'Distrid Forum') under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,
  1986 (in short the 'Act'). It was alleged in the complaint that the
D present   appellant started treatment of the teeth of the
  complainant's daughter on the basis of the recommendation
  made by Dr. Anjali Dave Tiwari who was respondent No.1 in
  the complaint petition.
         4. It was alleged that that the present appellant did not
E  complete the treatment of the teeth and in fact left the treatment
   midway which caused pain and agony to the daughter of the
   complainant. Both the respondents before the District Forum
   filed their objections. The District Forum held that the petition
  was not maintainable vis-a-vis the respondent No.1. However,
F it held that since the present appellant did not solve the problem
  and inconvenience suffered by the daughter of the complainant
  during the course of the treatment of her teeth and stopped the
  treatment midway on baseless and on imaginary grounds it was
  just and fair to award compensation to the complainant and,
G therefore, the appellant herein was directed to pay
  compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.3,000/- to the
                                                                        ...
  complainant. Both the present appellant and the complainant
  approached the State Commission. While the present appellant
  questioned the legality of the direction for payment of
H compensation, the present respondent No.1-complainant
       ANIRUDH AGGARWAL v. DHARAM BIR BHATIA                      917
                [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

    sought for enhancement of the amount. The State Commission           A
    recorded the findings that no affidavit was filed in the present
    case by the complainant's daughter to show as to whether she
    had suffered any pain and/or suffered physical hardship. It was
    also noted by the State Commission that in a case of this
    nature, since bulged and crooked teeth are put into the right        B
    position, age limitation in this regard could be an important
    factor. The State Commission also noted that, in the present
    case, the daughter of the complainant was told that considering
    her age the treatment could take a long time. It was found that
    the daughter of the complainant had not produced the basis on        c
    which it was said that she suffered intolerable pain and she
    brought it to the notice of the Doctor and even thereafter, the
    Doctor did not do anything. -It was noted that in the notice
    produced by the complainant it had not been mentioned
    anywhere that braces were tied up tightly because of which his       D
    daughter suffered problem. No opinion of any expert had been
    produced so that it could be said that appellant showed
    negligence in the treatment. The Bench during the hearing of
    the arguments asked the complainant as to whether his daughter
    could be sent to some expert even then so that it could be learnt    E
    as to whether the present appellant had committed any
    negligence in the treatment of her teeth and that the present
    appellant tied up the teeth of the complainant so tightly that it
•   made the life of complainant's daughter like a living hell.
    Complainant showed negative attitude in this regard and stated
    that the braces of his daughter have been removed and he did         F
    not want examination by any Expert. After referring to the factual
    aspects the State Commission observed as follows:
                "If any inconvenience is suffered in eating and
         drinking because of braces, negligence on the part of           G
         respondent could not be held mere on this ground.
         Complainant visited the respondent till nine months after
         fitting of the braces. In the meantime, if she had any
         problem, she could have discussed it with the respondent
         definitely."
                                                                         H
     918        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.


A       5. In other words, it was conclusively held that there was
  no medical negligence involved but it was directed that the
  complainant should be paid Rs.14,000/- which was the amount
  purported to have been paid by the complainant to the Doctor
  for treatment. Both the complainant and the present appellant
B filed revision petitions before the National Commission. By the
  impugned order the National Commission dismissed the
  revision petition filed by the appellant on the ground that medical
  negligence was writ large and no interference was called for. It
  was held that there was concurrent finding that the appellant was
c negligent in not treating the patient who was to be treated.
  Revision petition field by the complainant has been admitted
  and notice has been issued.
       6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
  National Commission has recorded incorrect finding that there
D is concurrent finding by the District Forum as well as the State
  Commission about the appellant being negligent and having not
  treated the patient. The complainant, who appears in person,
  supported the order of the National Commission.
        7. We are of the opinion that, prima facie, the National
E Commission was not justified in dismissing the revision petition
  filed by the appellant. Its conclusions that the forums below had
  recorded concurrent finding about the appellant being negligent
  and not treating the complainant's daughter is contrary to the
  conclusion recorded by the State Commission. That being so,
F we set aside the impugned order and direct that the revision
  petition of the appellant shall be heard along with the revision
  petition filed by the complainant which is numbered as Revision
  Petition No. 4294/2007. We make it clear that we have not
  expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
G
         8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as      ...
    to costs.
    B.B.B.                                    Appeal disposed of.