Court case(2002) 6 SCC 635

The respondent filed a complaint before the National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the appellant doctors and a hospital, alleging that a patient had died because of their negligence in treatment and claiming compensation. The doctors objected that the complaint raised complicated questions of fact and of medical science which required detailed evidence, examination and cross-examination of experts, and that it should therefore be left to the civil court and not decided under the summary procedure of the Act. The National Commission rejected the objection and proceeded with the complaint, and the doctors appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court (M.B. Shah J.) dismissed the appeal. The Act provides an alternative, additional remedy that is meant to be speedy and inexpensive; a consumer cannot be denied it merely because the facts are complicated. The fora are competent to decide medical negligence on evidence given by affidavits, on expert opinion and by cross-interrogatories, and where necessary by summoning and examining experts, without converting the proceedings into a full civil trial. The Court stressed that the time limits fixed by the Act and the rules for filing the opposite party's version and for disposing of complaints must be followed, that adjournments should not be granted as a matter of course, and that costs should be imposed for delay, so that the purpose of the Act is not defeated by the same delays that afflict civil courts.