In a Recent order, Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Petitioners for submitting Rs 2 Lakh in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund of the Post-graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh for filing writ against order of State Consumer Commission instead of approaching NCDRC
The issue before the Court
Whether this Court should entertain the writ petitions against the orders passed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Punjab State Dispute Redressal Commission particularly when a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 27-A is available before the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission?
Court Findings and Order
It will not be appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. In any case, this Court does not find that the proceedings before the State Commission are without jurisdiction. Under the 1986 Act, the State Commission does have the power to proceed under Section 27, if the order passed in the complaint has not been complied with. Section 27 of the 1986 Act, lays down the penalties including imprisonment
Further, the Court stated that the,
“There is no doubt that NCDRC is competent to examine and will decide holistically the plea sought to be taken in these writ petitions. Merely because Three Member Bench of NCDRC has already taken a view to the contrary will not by itself be sufficient to entertain the writ petition under Article 226.”
Further, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions by relegating the petitioners to the alternative remedy available before the NCDRC.
The writ petitioner(s) in all the three writ petitions are burdened with a cost of Rs.2 lakh with a view to desist such attempts. The cost shall be deposited in the ‘Poor Patients Welfare Fund’ of the Post-graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, personally or through its website “www.pgimer.edu.in”.
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
