Shreekrunshna Hrudyalay And ... vs Rahandamal Haraldas Chelwani And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14932 Bom

                                                                   5.wp.3510.2018.Judg..odt
                                            1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                               WRIT PETITION NO.3510/2018

          Shreekrushna Hrudyalay And Critical
          Care Center Through its Director
          Mahesh s/o Gandumal Fulwani
          Having it's Hospital at Congress Nagar,
          Dhantoli, Nagpur.                       ..... PETITIONER
                                                       (Original O.P.)

                                      // VERSUS //

 1.     Rahandamal Haraldas Chelwani,
        Aged about 66 yrs, Occ. Business,
        Ganesh Ward, Pusad,
        Tah - Pusad, Dist Yavatmal - 445204.


 2.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
        New Administrative Building,
        5th Floor, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001
        Through it's Registrar.                  .... RESPONDENTS

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Mr. M. Anilkumar Shankarlal, Advocate for petitioner.
          Mr. Mohammad Ateeque, Advocate for respondent No.1.
          Ms. Shamsi Haider, AGP for respondent No.2.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                  CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 12/10/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1] Heard Mr. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.

Mohammad Ateeque, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms.

Shamsi Haider, learned AGP for respondent No.2.

                                                               5.wp.3510.2018.Judg..odt


 2]               Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.


 3]               Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing

 for the parties.


 4]               The respondent No.1 had filed a Complaint before the

Consumer Forum alleging certain deficiencies against the petitioner vide

Complaint No.602 of 2011, which came to be decided on 31.8.2013 by

directing the petitioner to supply the documents relating to the surgery

performed upon the respondent No.1 within 30 days, failing which an

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was directed to be refunded from the date of

the complaint till its actual payment. A cost of Rs.50,000/- on account

of harassment was imposed and Rs.10,000/- was imposed as the cost of

the proceedings. In an appeal filed by the present petitioner bearing

First Appeal No. FA/13/229, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission by its Judgment dated 29.04.2017, partly allowed the

appeal and reduced the damages on account of harassment from

Rs.50,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.

5] The respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 27

of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in which, an application came to

be filed by the petitioner contending that the entire order of the State

Commission stood complied with and the application U/s 27 be

dismissed, dismissal of which by the order dated 17.04.2018, has

5.wp.3510.2018.Judg..odt

resulted in the present petition.

6] There is no dispute that the cost as well as the damages

imposed have already been deposited with the Consumer Forum and the

order to that extent stands complied with.

7] Mr. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner by inviting

my attention to para 10 of the Judgment in appeal points out that a

finding has been recorded that the petitioner has complied with the

direction to send the bills available with him to the Authorities. This is

not disputed by Mr. Mohammad Ateeque, learned counsel for respondent

No.1, who however, contends that certain more documents were

required to be sent. He, however, agrees that the claim before the

learned Forum was not in respect of certain specified documents but,

was in regard to sending of the documents relating to surgery available

with the petitioner and the bill of the same, which have been accordingly

sent. This being the position, the first direction as contained in the

Judgment of the learned Appellate Court regarding sending of the

relevant papers of the surgery to the competent Authority, also stood

complied with.

8] Thus, it would be apparent that the entire directions as

contained in the order of the learned Forum as modified by the

5.wp.3510.2018.Judg..odt

Commission stands complied with. Without considering this position,

the learned Forum passed the impugned order, which clearly cannot be

sustained, in view of what has been stated above. Since now it is

apparent that the order stands complied with the proceedings, obviously

cannot continue.

9] In that view of the matter, the impugned order is hereby

quashed and set aside. The application at Exh. 17 filed by the petitioner

is allowed and the EA No.13/109 stands dismissed.

10] Needless to say that the petitioner and respondent No.1

shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited before the learned

Forum, in the quantum to which they would be entitled to.

 11]              Rule accordingly. No costs.




                                     (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J)

 Sarkate.