C.W.P. No.9171 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9171 of 2009 Date of decision:13.07.2009. Dr. S.C.Pandhi and another ...Petitioners Versus State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. V.K.Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J. A complaint filed by respondent No.2, against the petitioners, is pending before respondent No.1. This writ petition has been field by the petitioners with a prayer to quash order dated 22.05.2009 (P-1) declining request of the petitioners to constitute a committee of doctors, to get opinion, regarding alleged medical negligence stated to have been committed by them. When notice was issued on 10.06.2009, following contention of the counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court: - “Counsel for the petitioners contends that without considering the application and mandate as granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Martin F. D'souza Versus Mohd. Ishfaq, 2009(2) P.L.R. 1, the Court has dismissed his application.” At the time of arguments, counsel for respondent No.2 opposed this writ petition by stating that the petitioners may avail alternative remedy of appeal and this writ petition is not competent. C.W.P. No.9171 of 2009 -2- Be that its may, on perusal of order dated 22.05.2009 (P-1), passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short `the Commission'), this Court feels that there is no necessity of filing appeal in this case, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Relevant portion of the order dated 22.05.2009 passed by the Commission reads thus: - “There is an application filed on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 for constituting a Committee of Doctors specializing the field of OTO RHINOLARYNGOLORY in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Martin F.D'souze Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq,. We have seen the application and we are of the view that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given directions of seeking the views of a Panel of Doctors only at the time of admission of a complaint alleging medical negligence. Since this complaint is already admitted and as per settled law if there is need to seek any consultation the Bench has the right to seek the same from the Panel of Doctors in view of the law settled. Hence this application is declined. In view of this, OPs are directed to submit their reply by 02.07.2009.” Contents of the order Annexure P-1 indicate that right of the petitioners to get opinion from experts has not been closed. As per ratio of the judgment in Martin F. D'souza's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is advisable for the Commissions to get opinion from experts before registering any complaint regarding medical negligence. In the present case, complaint was admitted on 10.02.2009. In view of the above, this Court feels that it is not possible to interfere in the order Annexure P-1. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners filed their written statement on or before the date given to them, C.W.P. No.9171 of 2009 -3- they are permitted to move an application and if they are successful in convincing the Commission that opinion from the experts is needed, the Commission will constitute a Committee of experts to get opinion regarding medical negligence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. This writ petition is disposed of with above mentioned observations. July 13, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod JUDGE