Holding

Delay in disposal and alleged complexity of the issues do not justify diverting a consumer complaint to a civil court; the National Commission is competent to decide the matter under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Summary

The doctors filed a petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging that a complaint of medical negligence against them should be dismissed or stayed, arguing that the case involved complicated questions of law and fact and that a nine‑year delay in disposal rendered the consumer forum inadequate. The NCDRC rejected the petition, holding that there is no universal rule requiring civil proceedings to be stayed during criminal trials and that the forum could decide the matter. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether delay in disposal, the alleged complexity of the issues, and the summary nature of the consumer forum procedure could justify directing the complainant to a civil court. The Court held that delay is not a ground to divert the complaint, and that the National Commission, headed by a retired judge, is competent to decide even complex questions of law and fact, with appropriate procedural safeguards. It further observed that the consumer forum’s summary procedure, supplemented by provisions for document production, affidavit evidence, and cross‑examination (including video or telephonic means), is sufficient to ensure justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and directions were issued to the Commission to avoid future delays.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of nine years in disposing a consumer complaint is a ground to direct the complainant to a civil court.
Whether complaints involving alleged medical negligence raise complicated questions of law or fact that cannot be dealt with by the consumer forum's summary procedure.
Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has jurisdiction and competence to decide such cases despite the alleged complexity.
Whether procedural provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Code of Civil Procedure can adequately address evidence taking and cross‑examination in such cases.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VIII Rule 1, s. Order VIII Rule 1-A, s. Order VII Rule 14, s. Order Vlll Rule I, s. Order XVIII Rule 4
Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 12(3), s. 13, s. 13(4), s. 20, s. 2(1)(o), s. 24B, s. 3
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 203, s. 304-A

Subjects

Consumer Protection ActMedical negligenceNational Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionDelay in disposalSummary procedureCivil court jurisdictionCode of Civil Procedure

Judgment

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
. Consu~er
complaint in National 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.
H
469
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
consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. [477-C, DJ

2.3. In view of Section 13 of the Act and Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the
H Commission can certainly refer to Order VII Rule 14 CPC which provides
DR. J.J. MERCHANT v. SHRlNATH CHATURVEDI 471

that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his A
possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents
in a list, and shall produce it in the Court when the plaint is presented by him
and shall at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed
with the plaint. The mandatory requirement is not followed and thereafter,
there is complaint of delay in disposal. Similarly, in case of written statement B
under Order VIII Rule 1-A defendant is required to produce the documents
relied upon by him when written submission is presented. The Commission
can always insist on production of all documents relied upon by the parties
along with the complaint and the defence version. [480-A, B[

2.4. In the present case, the complainant's case is based upon the C
negligence of the doctors in giving treatment to the deceased. Whether there
was negligence or not on the part of the concerned doctors would depend upon
facts alleged to and in such a case there is no question of complicated question
oflaw involved. It is true that it is the discretion of the Commission to examine
the experts, if required in appropriate matter. It is equally true that in cases
where it is deemed fit to examine experts, recording of evidence before a D
Commission may consume time. The Act specifically empowers the Consumer
Forums to follow the procedure which may not require more time or delay
the proceedings. Only caution required is to follow the said procedure strictly.
Hence, there is no scope of delay in examination or cross-examination of the
witnesses. The affidavits of the experts including the doctors can be taken as E
evidence. Thereafter, if cross-examination is sought for by the other side and
the Commission finds it proper, it can easily evolve a procedure permitting
the party who intends to cross-examine by putting certain questions in writing
and those questions also could be replied by such experts including doctors
and they can be taken as evidence on affidavit. In case where stakes are very
high and still party intends to cross-examine such doctors or experts, there F
can be video conferences or asking questions by arranging telephone
conference and at the initial stage this cost should be borne by the person
who claims such video conference. Further, cross-examination can be taken
by the Commissioner appointed by it at the working place of such experts at
a fixed time. [480-E, F, H; 481-A, BJ
G
3.1. The proposed amendment in the Act mandates the District Forum
or the Commission to decide the admissibility of the complaint within 21 days
from the date on which the complaint was received by it. This procedure is
required to be adhered so that after lapse of some time, objection with regard
to maintainability of the complaint is not required to be decided. [486-AJ H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 3.2. From the proposed amendment in the Act, by Consumer Protection
(Amendment) Bill, 2002, it is apparent that Parliament is alive to the problems
faced by the consumers and the consumer forums and, therefore, further
directions are not required to be given. However, apart from the contemplated
legislative action, it is expected that the Government would also take
appropriate steps in providing proper infrastructure so that the Act is properly
B implemented and the legislative purpose of providing alternative efficacious,
speedy, inexpensive remedy to the consumers is not defeated or frustrated.
[486-D, E)

[The Court directed that for avoiding delay in disposal of complaint
within prescribed period, National Commission is required to take
c appropriate steps viz.(a) 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; (b) it would oversee
that time limit prescribed for filing defence version and disposal of
complaints is strictly adhered to; (c) it would see that complaint as
D well as defence version are accompanied by documents and affidavits
upon which parties intend to rely; (d) !n 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; (e) In
cases where Commission deems it fit to cross-examine the witnesses
E 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 exp.erts such as doctors). (486-F, G, H; 487-A, BJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7975 of200l.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.5.2001 of the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in M.P. No. 53/2000 in O.P. No.
252of1993.

R.F. Nariman, P. Venugopal, P.S. Sudheer, Ms. Surekha Raman for M/s.
G K.J. John & Co. Uday Umesh Lalit, (A.C.), Anoop Bose, Ms. Nandini Gore,
Ms. Megha Mishra, Raja Chatterjee, G.S. Chatterjee, Ms. S. Shaoli Lata, for
· the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H SHAH, J. Miscellaneous Petition No.53 of 2000 was filed before the
DR. J.J. MERCHANT v. SHRINATH CHATURVEDI [M.B. SHAH, J.] 473

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as A
"National Commission"), New Delhi in Original Petition No.252 of 1993 by the
appellants - doctors praying that complaint filed for alleged medical negligence
be either dismissed as according to them complicated questions of law and
facts arise which can best be decided by the Civil Court or in the alternative
the proceeding be stayed during the pendency of criminal prosecution pending B
against them in criminal court at Mumbai. That application was rejected by
the Commission. Hence, this appeal.

In the present case, complainant respondent filed Original Petition before
the National Commission on 26.8.1993 alleging that his son aged 21 years was
admitted to the Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai on 4.8.1992 for operation of C
slip disc as he was suffering from backache. It was stated that before that,
he had returned from USA in the month of June, 1992 after obtaining degree
in Business Management. He died on 29th August, 1992 in the hospital itself.
For this, he attributed medical negligence.

Before filing complaint before the National Commission, the complainant D
had also filed criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai
for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A/20 I and 203 of Indian Penal
Code. That prosecution is also pending. The Commission rejected the
application by holding that there is no universal rule of law that during the
pendency of criminal proceedings, civil proceedings must invariably be stayed.
The Commission also observed that there was unexplained delay in moving E
such application at this stage and, therefore, case requires to be decided at
the earliest.

In this appeal, the Court issued notice on 7th December, 2001 and
thereafter on 28th January, 2002 passed the following order:
F
"It is contended by Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants and Mr. R.F. Nariman, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the intervenors that some guidelines will have
to be laid down w' ich are more precise in nature with regard to the
type of cases which the Consumer Forum will not entertain, keeping G
in mind the decision of this Court in Indian Medical Association v.
V.P. Shanta, [1995] 6 SCC 651 in paragraph 37. List after six weeks on
a non-miscellaneous day before a Bench of Three Judges. In the
meantime, there will be no stay of proceedings."

Learned senior counsel Mr. Nariman first submitted that considering - H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A (a) the inordinate delay in disposal of the complaint, (b) complicated question
of law and facts involved in this case depending upon medical experts opinion
summary procedure is not proper remedy for deciding such issues, hence
complainant should be directed to approach the Civil Court.

Reasons for delay as submitted by the Learned Counsel for the parties:
B
(a) Delay in making appointment of the Chairman and Members of
the Forum or Commission including National Commission;

(b) Not providing adequate infrastructure;

C (c) Delay because of heavy workload and there is only one Bench
of the National Commission or the State Commissions for deciding
complaints;

(d) Delay in procedure;

Before dealing with reasons for delay, the first question which requires
D consideration is whether delay in disposal of cases by the Consumer Forum
or Commission would be a ground for directing the complainant to approach
Civil Court?

In the present case, there is inordinate delay of about nine years in
E disposal of complaint. However, if this contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants is accepted, apart from the fact that it would be
unjust, the whole purpose and object of enacting the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') would be frustrated. One of the
main objects of the Act is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer
disputes and for that a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set up at the
F district, State and Central level. These quasi-judicial bodies are required to
observe the principles of natural justice and have been empowered to give
relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation
to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance of the orders given by the quasi-
judicial bodies have also been provided. The object and purpose of enacting
the Act is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers
G 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
H are provided with an alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy. As such, die
DR. J.J. MERCHANT v. SHR!NATH CHATURVEDI [M.B. SHAH, J.] 475

Consumer forum is an alternative forum established under the Act to discharge A
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.

Further, while rejecting the similar contention where the complainant
was directed to approach State Commission or District Forum, this Court in B
Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital and Ors.. [2000] 7 SCC 668 observed
that appellant ought no~ to have been condemned unheard after waiting for
six long years; the legislative intent, for enacting the legislation, of a speedy
summary trial, to settle the claim'of the complainant (consumers) has been
respected in breach. The spirit of the benevolent legislation has been C
overlooked and its object frustrated by non-suiting the appellant in the
manner in which it has been done by the National Consumer Forum. It was
further observed that "the Consumer Forums must take expeditious steps to
deal with the complaints filed before them and not keep them pending for
years. It would defeat.the object of the Act, if summary trial' are not disposed
of expeditiously by the forums at the District, State or National levels. Steps D
in this direction are required to be taken in the right earnest".

Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the present case
involves complicated question of facts for which experts including doctors
would be required to be examined and their cross-examination may be necessary, E
therefore also, the National Commission ought to have directed the complainant
to approach the Civil Court. For this purpose, the reliance is placed upon the
decision of this Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and
Ors., [1995] 6 sec 651 para 37 and it is submitted that in the present case
complicated question of fact involving negligence of doctors is to be decided
and, therefore, complainant should be directed to approach the Civil Court. F
In the aforesaid case, the Court rejected the said contention and observed
thus:

" .... It has been urged that proceedings involving negligence in the
matter of rendering services by a medical practitioner would raise
complicated questions requiring evidence of experts to be recorded G
and that the procedure which is followed for determination of consumer
disputes under the Act is summary in nature involving trial on the
basis of affidavits and is not suitable for determination of complicated
questions. It is no doubt true that sometimes complicated questions
requiring recording of evidence of experts may arise in a complaint H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A about deficiency in service based on the ground of negligence in
rendering medical services by a medical practitioner; but this would
not be so in all complaints about deficiency in rendering services by
a medical practitioner. There may be cases which do not raise such
complicated questions and the deficiency in service may be due to
obvious faults which can be easily established such as removal of the
B wrong limb or the performance of an operation on the wrong patient
or giving injection of a drug to which the patient is allergic without
looking into the out-patient card containing the warning as in Chin
Keow v. Govt. of Malaysia, (1967) 1WLR813 PC or use of wrong gas
during the course of an anaesthetic or leaving inside the patient
c swabs or other items of operating equipment after surgery. One often
reads about such incidents in the newspapers. The issues arising in
the complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the
procedure that is being followed /:Jy the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Agencies and there is no reason why complaints regarding deficiency
in service in such cases should not be adjudicated by the Agencies
D under the Act. In complaints involving complicated issues requiring
recording of evidence of experts, the complainant can be asked to
approach the civil court for appropriate relief. Section 3 of the Act
which prescribes that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition
to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other Jaw for the
E time being in force, preserves the right of the consumer to approach
the civil court for necessary relief. We are, therefore, unable to hold
that on the ground of composition of the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Agencies or on the ground of the procedure which is followed by the
said Agencies for determining the issues arising before them, the
service rendered by the medical practitioners are not intended to be
F included in the expression 'service' as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of
the Act.. ........... "

In the aforesaid case, the Court was dealing with a contention that
services rendered by the medical practitioners are not intended to be included
G in the expression "service" as defined in Section 2( 1)(o) of the Act. That
contention was negatived by the Court. Further from this decision, it is
apparent that it is within the discretion of the Commission to ask the
complainant to approach the civil court for appropriate relief in case complaint
involves complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, which
may delay the proceeding. But the court has specifically held that issues
H arising in the complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the
DR. J.J. MERCHANT v. SHRINATH CHATURVEDI [M.B. SHAH, J.] 477

procedure that is being followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal A
Agencies.

Further, under the Act the 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. Hence, it would not be proper to hold that B
in cases where negligence of experts is alleged, consumers should be directed
to approach the Civil Court.

It was next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot
be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires C
to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive
procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided.
Therefore, 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 reasonable long drawn
delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the D
aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that legislature
has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy
to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would
also 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. The Act provides sufficient safeguards. For this P.urpose, we E
would refer to the procedure prescribed under the Act for disposal of the
complaint.

"13. Procedure on receipt ofcomplaint--{\) The District Forum shall,
on receipt of a complaint, if it relates to any goods-
F
(a) refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite party mentioned in
the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within
a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding
fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum;
(b) where the opposite party on receipt of a complaint referred to him G
under clause {a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in
the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his
case within the time given by the District Forum, the District
Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute in the manner
specified in clauses ( c) to (g);
H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A (c) to (g) ............ .

(2) the District Forum shall, if the complaint received by it under
section 12 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified
in sub-section {I) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to
any services,
B (a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him
to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or
such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be
granted by the District Forum;
(b) where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint,
c referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations
contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action
to represent his case within the time given by the District forum,
the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute,
(i) on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant
D and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or
disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or
(ii) on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant
where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to
represent his case within the time given by the Forum.
E
(3) No proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in sub-
sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the
ground that principles of natural justice have not been complied with.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have
F the same powers as are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters,
namely:

(i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant
or witness and examining the witness on oath.
G (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material
object producible as evidence;
(iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits;
(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test
H from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source;
DR. J.J. MERCHANT v. SHRINATH CHATURVEDI [M.B. SHAH, J.] 479

(v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; A
and

(vi) any other matter which may be prescribed."

The National Commission or the State Commission is empowered to
follow the said procedure. From the aforesaid Section it is apparent that on B
receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to be given notice
directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30-days or
such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District
Forum or the Commission. For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate
of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the C
version of the case is required to be adhered. If this is not adhered, the
legislative mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five months
would be defeated.

For thi$ purpose, even the Parliament has amended Order Vlll Rule I
of Code of Civil Procedure, which reads thus: D
"Rule-I: Wrillen statement.-The defendant shall, within thirty days
from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement
of his defence :

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement E
within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the
same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety
days from the date of service of summons. "

Under this Rule also, there is a legislative mandate that written statement F
of defence is to be filed within 30 days. However, if there is a failure to file
such written statement within stipulated time, the court can at the most extend
further period of 60 days and no more. Under the Act, the legislative intent
is not to give 90 days of time but only maximum 45 days for filing the version
by the opposite party. Therefore, the aforesaid mandate is required to be G
strictly adhered to.

Further, under Section 13(4) of the Act, the Commission or the Forum
is empowered to exercise the powers vested in Civil Court for discovery and
production of any document, the reception of evidence on affidavit and of
issuing of any commission qua examination of any witness. H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A In view of the aforesaid provisions, the Commission can certainly refer
to Order VII Rule 14 which provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a
document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of
his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in the
Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver
the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. It appears that
B this mandatory requirement is not followed and thereafter, there is complaint
of delay in disposal. Similarly, in case of written statement under Order VIII
Rule I-A, defendant is required to produce the documents relied upon by him
when written submission is presented. The Commission can always insist on
production of all documents relied upon by the parties along with the complaint
C and the defence version.

Further, in the present case, the complainant's case is based upon the
negligence of the Doctors in giving treatment to the deceased. Whether there
was negligence or not on the part of the concerned Doctors would depend
upon facts alleged to and in such a case there is no question of complicated
D question of law involved. However, it has been pointed out by the learned
senior counsel that recording of evidence of experts including doctors relied
upon by the complainant would consume much time and therefore also.,,
complainant should approach the Civil Court. As against this, learned counsel
for the complainant submitted that under the Act, Commission is required to
E follow summary procedure. It may or may not examine the doctors or experts.
It may only rely upon the statements given by such doctors or experts.

It is true that it is the discretion of the Commission to examine' the
experts if required in appropriate matter. It is equally true that in cases where
it is deemed fit to examine experts, recording of evidence before a Commission
F may consume time. The Act specifically empowers the Consumer Forums to
follow the procedure which may not require more time or delay the proceedings.
Only caution required is to follow the said procedure strictly. Under the Act,
while trying a complaint, evidence could be taken on affidavits [under Section
13(4)(iii)]. It also empowers such Forums to issue any Commission for
examination of any witness [under Section 13(4)(v)]. It is also to be stated that
G Rule 4 in Order XVIII of C.P.t. is substituted which inter alia provides that
in every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and
copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls
him for evidence. It also provides that witnesses could be examined by the
Court or the Commissioner appointed by it. As stated above, the Commission
H is also empowered to follow the said procedure. Hence, we do not think that
DR. J.J. MERCHANT v. SHRINATH CHATURVEDI [M.B. SHAH, J.] 481

there is any scope of delay in examination or cross-examination of the witnesses. A
The affidavits of the experts including the doctors can be taken as evidence.
Thereafter, if cross-examination is sought for by the other side and the
Commission finds it proper, it can easily evolve a procedure permitting the
party who intends to cross-examine by putting certain questions in writing
and those questions also could be replied by such experts including doctors B
on affidavits. In case where stakes are very high and still party intends to
cross-examine such doctors or experts, there can be video conferences or
asking questions by arranging telephone conference and at the initial stage
this cost should be borne by the person who claims such video conference.
Further, cross-examination can be taken by the Commissioner appointed by
it at the working place of such experts at a fixed time. C
In any case, for avoiding the delay the District Forum or Commissions
can evolve a procedure of levying heavy cost where adjournment is sought
by a party on one or the other ground. This would have its own impact on
disposing the complaints, appeals or revisions within the stipulated or
reasonable time. For avoiding delay in disposal of cases, the procedure and D
the time limit prescribed under the Act and the Rules is required to be strictly
adhered to and followed. If there is proper mind set to do so on the part of
all concerned, delay in disposal to a iarge extent could be avoided.

Learned senior counsel Mr. Nariman and Mr. Chatterjee and Mr. Lalit E
(Amicus Curiae) submitted that despite various directions given by this Court
including the decision given in Charan Singh's case (Supra), the District
Forums, State Commissions and National Commission remain flooded with
number of complaints, appeals and revisions and arrears is mounting. For
delay, they unanimously submitted that after enactment of the Act, appropriate
steps are not taken by the Government for ensuring that the National F
Commission as well as State Forums can function properly. It is submitted that
even if one Member is appointed, other members of the Forum are not
appointed. It is also pointed out that on occasions there is no simultaneous
appointment of the Members of the Forum or the President so as to make it
functional. Jn most of the cases, it is their submission that even after
... appointment of the members, the forum is not provided with necessary building
and infrastructure.
G

It is also pointed out that before the National Commission, as on Ist
April 2002, 7582 matters were pending, which consisted of 1495 original
petitions, 2330 first appeals and 3757 revision petitions. It is true that for H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A disposal of these many matters in a stipulated time limit as prescribed under
the Act or the Rules, one Bench may not be in a position to cope up with
the work.

For reducing the arrears and for seeing that complaints, appeals and
revisions are decided speedily and within stipulated time, we hope that
B President of National Commission would draw the attention of the Government
for taking appropriate actions within stipulated time and see that object and
purpose of the Act is not frustrated.

Further, National Commission has administrative control over the State
C Commissions and District Forums as provided under Section 24-B, which
reads thus:

"24B. Administrative Control. (1) The National Commission shall
have administrative control over all the State Commissions in the
following matters, namely-

D (i) calling fot periodical return regarding the institution, disposal
pendency of cases;
(ii) issuance of instructions regarding adoption of uniform procedure
in the hearing of matters, prior service of copies of documents
produced by one party to the opposite parties, furnishing of
E English translation of judgments written in any language, speedy
grant of copies of documents;
(iii) generally overseeing the functioning of the State Commissions or
the District Fora to ensure that the objects and purposes of the
Act are best served without in any way interfering with their
F quasi-judicial freedom.

(2) The State Commission shall have administrative control over all the
District Fora within its jurisdiction in all matters referred to in sub-section (l)."

It can be hoped that the National Commission would ensure its best
G to see that District Forums, State Commissions and National Commission can
discharge its functions as efficiently and speedily as contemplated by the
provisions of the Act. The National Commission has administrative control
over all the State Commissions inter alia for issuing of instructions regarding
adoption of uniform procedure in hearing of the matters etc. It would have
also administrative control, in overseeing that the functions of the State
H Commissions or District Forums are discharged in furtherance of objects and
DR. 1.1. MERCHANT v. SHRINATH CHATURVEDI [M.B. SHAH, J.) 483

purposes of the Act in the best manner. A
It is to .be stated that the grievances of the learned counsel for the
parties is sought to be taken care by the proposed amendment in the
Legislation. For this, we would refer to the Consumer Protection (Amendment)
Bill, 2002, which was introduced in Rajya Sabha and was passed on 11th
March, 2002. The statement of objects and reasons of the said Bill reads B
thus: -

"The enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was an
important milestone in the history of the consumer movement in the
country. The Act was made to provide for the better protection and C
promotion of consumer rights through the establishment of Consumer
Councils and quasi-judicial machinery. Under the Act, consumer
disputes redressal agencies have been set up throughout the country
with the District Forum at the district level, State Commission at the
State level and National Commission at the National level to provide
simple, inexpensive and speedy justice to the consumers with D
complaints against defective goods, deficient services and unfair and
restrictive trade practices. The Act was also amended in the years
1991 and 1993 to make it more effective and purposeful.

2. Although the consumer disputes redressal agencies have to a
considerable extent, served the purpose for which they were created, E
the disposal of cases has not been fast enough. Several bottlenecks
and shortcomings have also come to light in the implementation of
various provisions of the Act. With a view to achieving quicker
disposal of consumer complaints by the consumer disputes redressal
agencies securing effective implementation of their orders, widening F
the scope of some of the provisions of the Act to make it more
\ effective, removing various lacunae in the Act and streamlining the
procedures, amendments are proposed in the Act, which inter alia,
include the following, namely:

(Q exclusion of the jurisdiction of the consumer disputes redressal G
Agencies in respect of claims for which corresponding provisions
in the special laws exist for the protection of interests of
consumers;

(ii) provisions for creation of Benches of the National Commission
and State Commissions as well as holding of circuit benches of H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A these Commissions;
(iii) prescribing the period within which complaints are to be admitted,
notices are to be issued to opposite party and the complaints are
to be decided. Similar provisions have been proposed also in
respect of appeals;
B (iv) no adjournment to be ordinarily allowed and allowed where, a
speaking order giving reasons would be made.
(v) ................................(xvii) ....................."

Further proposed amendments inter alia provides that after sub-section
C (I) of Section 20, sub-section (lA)(i) and (ii) shall be inserted, which reads
thus:

"(lA)(i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National
Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof.

D (ii) A Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more
members as the President may deem fit."

Similar provision is introduced for the State Commission by inserting
sub-section (I B)(i) and (ii) after sub-section (l) of Section 16, which reads
thus:-
E "(1 B) (i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State
Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof.

(ii) A Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more
members as the President may deem fit."

F Therefore, the President of the National Commission or the State
Commission would have power to form the Benches for disposal of the
pending cases. It would certainly depend upon the workload and the time
frame contemplated under the Act for disposal of such cases.

G Proposed Bill also envisages insertion of Sub-section 3A in Section 13
of the Act, which reads as under:
,.
"(3A) Every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and
endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite party
where the complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities
H
DR. J.J. MERCHANT v. SHRINf,. TH CHATURVEDI [M.B. SHAH, J.] 485

and within five months if it requires analysis or testing of commodities: A
Provided that no a<!journment shall be ordinarily granted by the
District F'orum unless sufficient cause is shown and the reasons for
grant of adjournment have been recorded in writing by the Forum:

Provided further that the District Forum shall make such orders as B
to the costs occasioned by the a<!journment as may be provided in
the regulations made under this Act."

From the wording of the aforesaid Section, it is apparent that there is
legislative mandate to the District Forum or the Commissions to dispose of
the complaints as far as possible within prescribed time of three months by C
adhering strictly to the procedure prescribed under the Act. The opposite
party has to submit its version within 30 days from the date of the receipt
of the complaint by him and Commission can give at the most further 15 days
for some unavoidable reasons to file its version.

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that in the present case, there
D
is a delay of more than nine years in disposal of the complaint. For that
purpose, they made a grievance that matters are repeatedly adjourned on one
or other ground without following the procedure prescribed under Section 13
of the Act and Rule 14 of the Consumer Protection Rules. The proposed
amendment also requires that no adjournment shall ordinarily be granted and E
in any case if adjournment is required to be granted, reasons for the same are
required to be recorded. Further, to discourage grantiog of repeated
adjournments, if National Commission frames necessary regulations heavy
cost could be awarded. There is also proposal to add Section 12(3), which
reads thus
F
"12(3) On receipt ofa complaint made under sub-section(!}, the
District Forum may, by order, allow the complaint to be proceeded with
or rejected:

Provided that a complaint shall not be rejected under this sub- G
section unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the
complainant:

Provided funher that the admissibility of the cdmplaint shall
ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which
the complaint was received " H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A It is apparent that the aforesaid proposed amendment in the Act
mandates the District Forum or the Commission to decide the admissibility of
the complaint within 21 days from the date on which the complaint was
received by it. This procedure is required to be adhered to so that after lapse
of some time, objection with regard to maintainability of the complaint is not
B required to be decided.

Other proposed amendments, such as, Sections 22C and 22D, which
deal with Circuit Benches and filling up of vacancies in the office of President
of District Forum, State Commission or of the National Commission, as the
case may be, is not required to be referred to. However, we would mention
C that Section 30A, which is proposed to be inserted, empowers the Commission
to frame regulations with the approval of the Central Government and sub-
section (2) empowers the Commission to frame regulations for making
provisions for the cost of adjournment of any proceeding before the District
Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.

D From the proposed amendment in the Act, it is apparent that Parliament
is alive to the problems faced by the consumers and the consumer forums
and, therefore, further directions are not required to be given.

However, apart from the contemplated legislative action, it is expected
that the Government would also take appropriate steps in providing proper
E infrastructure so that the Act is properly implemented and the legislative
purpose of providing alternative, efficacious, speedy, inexpensive remedy to
the consumers is· not defeated or frustrated.

Similar action is also expected from the National Commission as well as
State Commissions. Hence, for avoiding delay in disposal of complaints within
F prescribed period, National Commission is required to take appropriate steps
including:

(a) 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
G the Commission for want of Members;
(b) It would oversee that time limit prescribed for filing defence
version and disposal of complaints is strictly adhered to;
(c) It would see that complaint as well as defence version should be
H accompanied by documents and affidavits upon which parties
DR. J.J. MERCHANT v. SHRINATH CHATURVEDI [M.B. SHAH, J.] 487

intend to rely; A
(d) 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;

(e) In cases where Commission deems it fit to cross-examine the B
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 C
of. There shall be no order as to costs. IA Nos. I to 4 do not require any
further consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.

Before parting with the judgment, we would appreciate the assistance
rendered by the learned counsel for the parties and Amicus Curiae. D
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.