LawRato

SC directs NCDRC to introduce mechanism for speedy disposal and use of ADR

September 07, 2017


The Supreme Court last week to ensure that the object and scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is achieved directed the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission(NCDRC) to introduce a mechanism for speedy disposal and use of Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) mechanism by Consumer Forum.

The Bench comprising Justice A.K. Goel and Justice U.U. Lalit opined that steps can be taken under Section 24B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It observed that since the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has administrative control over all the State Commissions, it is competent to introduce monitoring mechanism for speedy disposal of cases.

The Court further referred to Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down the mechanism for settlement of disputes outside the Court. “ Even though strictly speaking, the said provision is applicable only to civil courts, there is no reason to exclude its applicability to Consumer Fora having regard to the object of the said provision and the object of the consumer protection law. Accordingly, we are of the view that the said provision ought to be duly invoked by the Consumer Fora. We request the National Commission to issue appropriate directions in this regard.

The Bench also clarified that it would be open to the NCDRC and the State Commission to coordinate with the National Legal Services Authority and the State Legal Services Authorities.

The Court was hearing an Appeal challenging an order passed by the NCDRC, wherein it had rejected the complaint filed by a husband alleging death of his wife due to medical negligence. The Appeal, filed by the legal representatives of the couple, contended that surgery was performed on the deceased woman at a nursing home which did not have an ICU.

The Apex Court agreed with this contention, observing, “ We however, find that neither the State Commission nor the National Commission have examined the plea of the appellant that the operation should not have been performed at a nursing home which did not have the ICU when it could be reasonably foreseen that without ICU there was postoperative risk to the life of the patient. There was no serious contest to this claim by the opposite parties.”

The court considering the fact that the matter had been pending for the last 23 years. It then directed the accused doctor to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakh to the heirs of the deceased, directing him to deposit the said amount with the State Commission within 3 months.


 

Latest Legal News


Supreme Court’s Verdict on the Same-Sex Marriage; No Fundamental Right to Marry
3 Bills to Renew India's Criminal Justice System presented in Lok Sabha; All you Need to Know
Data Protection Bill Passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha; Decoding the DPDP Bill
High Court; Denying Physical Intimacy to Wife not Cruelty under IPC
PoSH Act Implementation
‘Sorry state of affairs' in PoSH Act implementation; SC orders Govts. to ensure ICCs are constituted
Widow can't inherit Property if Husband did not own it: Punjab & Haryana HC
Widow can't inherit Property if Husband did not own it: Punjab & Haryana HC