- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42575
WP No. 27778 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27778 OF 2024 (GM-CON)
BETWEEN:
1. DR. ARUN CHAWLA,
S/O LATE S.H. INDER MOHAN CHAWLA,
AGED 60 YEARS,
PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF
UROLOGY, KASTURBA HOSPITAL, MANIPAL,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
2. DIRECTOR,
MANIPAL INSITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
KASTURBA HOSPITAL, MANIPAL,
UDUPI DISTRICT, AGED 58 YEARS.
3. VICE CHANCELLOR,
MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
KASTURBA HOSPITAL, MANIPAL,
UDUPI DISTRICT, AGED 67 YEARS.
4. REGISTRAR,
MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
KASTURBA HOSPITAL, MANIPAL,
UDUPI DISTRICT, AGED 50 YEARS.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. MANASI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S. GANGAIAH,
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
- 2 -
R/O DEVAKATHIKOPPA VILLAGE,
JAKATHAMMA EXTENSION, KOTEGANGUR POST,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 204.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR,
MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
KASTURBA HOSPITAL, MANIPAL,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 104.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
KASTURBA HOSPPITAL, MANIPAL,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 104.
4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP,
KASTURBA HOSPITAL, MANIPAL,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 104. …RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT, QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.08.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIVAMOGGA ON IA (ANNEXURE-A) FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/ OPPOSITE PARTY NOS.1 TO 4 IN CC.38/2024 AND ALLOW THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
- 3 -
ORAL ORDER
In the present case, Respondent No.1 has filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging medical negligence against the petitioners. In support of the complaint, the complainant submitted his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, reaffirming the claims made in the original complaint. Following this, the petitioners submitted an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), read with Section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking permission to cross-examine Complainant Witness No.1 (C.W.1). However, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rejected this application, reasoning that cross- examination of witnesses before the Forum under the Act is not a general rule but an exception, and that the petitioners had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting cross- examination of C.W.1.
2. It is noteworthy that the complainant did not object to being cross-examined by the petitioners. Moreover, in the case of
Dr. Dr. Swaroop Gopal (S) v. Goli Venkateshwar Rao (S). 213], the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruled that when a person's reputation, particularly that of a medical professional, is at stake in a case of alleged medical negligence, the accused has the right to cross-examine any individual making allegations of professional misconduct against them. Despite this clear precedent, the District Consumer Forum in this instance rejected the petitioners'
- 4 -
application, an action that is legally unsustainable and contrary to established jurisprudence.
3. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds the impugned order legally untenable and hereby issues the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 29.08.2024, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shivamogga, on I.A. (Annexure-A), filed by the petitioners/opposite party Nos.1 to 4 in C.C. No. 38/2024, is hereby set aside.
iii) Consequently, the petitioners' application is allowed, and they are granted permission to physically cross-examine C.W.1 on the date they are summoned for the same. Hand delivery ordered.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
HDK
Comments