1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.505 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Dr.P.Vigneshraj .. Petitioner/Respondent Opposite Party Vs. M.Ponnaiah .. Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.08.2010 passed in C.M.P.No.28 of 2010 in C.C.No.2 of 2005 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondent : Mr.A.Arumugam ORDER The order passed in C.M.P.No.28 of 2010 in C.C.No.2 of 2005 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent herein as complainant has filed C.C.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul, wherein the present petition has been filed in C.M.P.No.28 of 2010 so as to examine the doctors, who treated the deceased. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul has allowed the same. Against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the provision of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein it is stated like thus: "Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed". 4. As stated earlier, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in C.M.P.No.28 of 2010 in C.C.No.2 of 2005 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul. As per the provision of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it is very clear that the present Civil Revision Petition is not legally maintainable and the proper remedy open to the revision petitioner is to file an appeal before the State Commission and therefore the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs. However the revision petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 is at liberty to invoke Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 subject to limitation. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul. +1cc to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate, SR.No.39182 smn GH : 21.11.2011 : 2p/3c C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.505 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 09.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/