2002 (8) TMI 835 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether delay in disposal of cases by the Consumer Forum or Commission would be a ground for directing the complainant to approach Civil Court? Whether there was negligence or not on the part of the concerned Doctors? Held that - In the present case, there is inordinate delay of about nine years in disposal of complaint. The object and purpose of enacting the the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers with complaints against defective goods and deficient services and the benevolent piece of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation would be defeated. Prior to the Act, consumers were required to approach the Civil Court for securing justice for the wrong done to them and it is known fact that decision in suit takes years. Under the Act, consumers are provided with an alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy. As such, the Consumer forum is an alternative forum established under the Act to discharge the functions of a Civil Court. Therefore, delay in disposal of the complaint would not be a ground for rejecting the complaint and directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court. Hence, for avoiding delay in disposal of complaints within prescribed period, National Commission is required to take appropriate steps including By exercise of Administrative control, it can be seen that competent persons are appointed as Members on all levels so that there may not be any delay in composition of the Forum or the Commission for want of Members; It would oversee that time limit prescribed for filing defence version and disposal of complaints is strictly adhered to It would see that complaint as well as defence version should be accompanied by documents and affidavits upon which parties intend to rely; In cases where cross-examination of the persons who have filed affidavits is necessary, suggested questions of cross-examination be given to the persons who have tendered their affidavits and reply may be also on affidavits; In cases where Commission deems it fit to cross- examine the witnesses in person, video conference or telephonic conference at the cost of person who so applies could be arranged or cross-examination could be through a Commission. This procedure would be helpful in cross-examination of experts, such as, Doctors. In the result, with the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the complaint for alleged medical negligence should be dismissed or stayed due to pending criminal prosecution.
2. Whether delay in disposal of cases by the Consumer Forum is a ground for directing the complainant to approach Civil Court.
3. Whether complicated questions of law and facts should be decided by Civil Court instead of Consumer Forum.
4. Whether summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act is adequate for deciding cases involving medical negligence.
5. Measures to reduce delays and improve efficiency in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal or Stay of Complaint Due to Pending Criminal Prosecution:
The appellants, doctors, filed a petition to dismiss or stay the complaint filed for alleged medical negligence, arguing that complicated questions of law and facts arise, which can best be decided by the Civil Court. The National Commission rejected this application, stating that there is no universal rule of law that civil proceedings must be stayed during the pendency of criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the Consumer Protection Act provides an alternative, efficacious, and speedy remedy to consumers, and delaying the complaint would frustrate the purpose of the Act.

2. Delay in Disposal of Cases by Consumer Forum:
The appellants contended that the inordinate delay of about nine years in disposing of the complaint should be a ground for directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the delay in disposal does not justify directing the complainant to the Civil Court, as it would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, which aims to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes. The Court emphasized the need for Consumer Forums to take expeditious steps to deal with complaints and avoid delays.

3. Complicated Questions of Law and Facts:
The appellants argued that the present case involves complicated questions of facts requiring expert opinions, which are not suitable for summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, which held that not all cases involving medical negligence require complicated questions to be decided. The Court stated that the Consumer Forums are competent to decide such issues and can refer the complainant to the Civil Court only if the case involves complicated issues requiring extensive evidence from experts.

4. Adequacy of Summary Procedure Under Consumer Protection Act:
The Supreme Court held that the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act is adequate for deciding cases involving medical negligence. The Act provides sufficient safeguards and empowers the Consumer Forums to follow procedures that ensure justice while adhering to principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the legislative mandate of providing a speedy, simple, and inexpensive remedy to consumers should not be curtailed on the ground of summary procedure.

5. Measures to Reduce Delays and Improve Efficiency:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the issues of delay and heavy workload faced by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies. The Court suggested several measures to reduce delays and improve efficiency, including:
- Ensuring timely appointment of competent members to the Forums and Commissions.
- Strict adherence to the time limits prescribed for filing defence versions and disposing of complaints.
- Accompanying complaints and defence versions with relevant documents and affidavits.
- Utilizing video conferences or telephonic conferences for cross-examination of experts to avoid delays.
- Imposing heavy costs for adjournments to discourage unnecessary delays.

The Court also referred to the proposed amendments in the Consumer Protection Act, which aim to address these issues by providing for the creation of Benches, prescribing time limits for various stages of proceedings, and discouraging adjournments. The Court expressed hope that the National Commission and State Commissions would take appropriate steps to ensure the efficient and speedy disposal of cases.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the National Commission's decision to proceed with the complaint despite the pending criminal prosecution and delays. The Court emphasized the need for Consumer Forums to adhere to the legislative mandate of providing speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and suggested measures to improve efficiency and reduce delays in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies.

← Previous Next →