DR. J.J. MERCHANT AND ORS. versus SHRINATH CHATURVEDI

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 12-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. J.J. MERCHANT AND ORS. 
A 
11. 
SHRINATH CHA TURVEDI 
AUGUST 12, 2002 
· (M.B. SHAH, BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH AND H.K: SEMA,JJ.] B 
' . 
. 
. 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986/Consumer Protection Rules, 1986- . 
Section 13/Rule 14-Complaint before National Commission-Plea to transfer 
to Civil Court on ground of delay in disposal of the case and since case C 
involved disputed question of/aw and facts where.summary procedure was 
· not adequate-Held, cannot be transferred-Commission competent to decide 
complicated questions of LaW-Delay in· disposal of the ·case cannot be a 
ground to direct the complainant to approach civil court-Delay ·can be 
avoided in view of Order Vil Rule 14 and Order VIII Rule I and IA and the 
proposed amendment in the Act-Direction issued to Commission-Code of D 
Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder VJJJ, Rules I and IA, Order VII, Rule 14, Order. 
XVII, Rule 4-Consumer Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2002. · 
. 
. ~omplainant-r~Jndent ~~ed complaint in National Consu~er Disputes 
Redressal Commission (NCDRq against appellant-doctors alleging medical 
negligence. Before filing complaint he.also filed criminal case which was E 
pending before trial Court Appellant-doctors filed miscellaneous petition 
before NCDRC praying that complaint be either dismissed (as complicated 
questions of law and facts arise which can best be decided by Civil Court) or · 
proceeding be stayed during the pend ency of criminal prosecution. This was 
rejected by Commission holding that there is iio universal rule of law that . F 
during pendency or criminal proceedings, civil proceedings should be stayed. 
In appeal to this Court appellants conte~ded that complainant should be 
directed to approach Civil Court since there was inordinate delay of nine years 
in disposal of the case as matter was repeatedly adjourned on one or the other 
ground without calling in the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of G 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Rule 14 of Consumer Protection Rules; · 
1986, and since complicated questions of law and facts were involved in the 
case for which expert~ including doctors would be required to be exami~ed 
and their cross-examination might be necessary for which summary 
procedure was not a proper remedy. 
469 
H 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Delay in disposal of the complaint would not be a ground for 
rejecting the complaint and directing the comphlinant to approach the Civil 
Court. If complainant is directed to approach Civil Court due to delay in 
disposal of cases by Consumer Commission, it would be unjust and the whole 
B purpose and object of enacting the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be 
frustrated. The object and purpose of enacting the Act 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 
C defeated. [475-A; 476-F, G] 
Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital and Ors., (2000] 7 SCC 668, 
relied on. 
2.1. It would not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of 
D experts is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the Civil Court. 
Under the Act, National Commission is required to be headed by a retired 
judge of this Court and the State Commission is required to be headed by a 
retired High Court Judge. They are competent to decide complicated issues 
of law or facts. [477-8) 
E 
Indian Medical Association v. VP. Shantha and Ors., [1995) 6 SCC 37, 
referred to. 
2.1. It would be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is 
provided justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to 
be dealt with or decided. It cannot be said that complicated questions of facts 
F cannot be decided in summary proceedings· because under the Act, for 
summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principle 
of natural justice is provided. Merely because it is mentioned that Commission 
or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for 
directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For trial to be just and 
G reasonable long drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the 
litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. Legislature has 
provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the 
consumer

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.