NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1116 OF 2003 (From the Order dated 23.1.2003 in Misc. application No. 1117/02 in Complaint No. 203/92 of State Commission, Maharashtra) Shushrusha Citizens Co-op. Hospital & Anr. Petitioners Vs. Murlidhar Eknath Masane Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKHSMI RAO, MEMBER MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, MEMBER Interest complaint of professional negligence that allowed by the State Commission with interest @ 18% per annum appeal to National Commission interim order of stay to deposit the principal amount in the State Commission and FDR taken appeal dismissed by the National Commission-State Commission directing payment of principal amount with interest @ 18% per annum. Held the deposits in terms of the National Commissions order was not like voluntary deposit in Civil Court to avoid payment of interest. The amount deposited in terms of the order of the of the State Commission could not be withdrawn by the complainant held complainant entitled to interest over and above that earned on FDR. For the Petitioner : Mr. Gopal Jain and Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocates Dated: 4TH APRIL, 2003 O R D E R
PER D.P. WADHWA, J. (PRESIDENT)
It
is the opposite party-hospital and the doctor who are before us in this
revision against the order of the State commission passed in execution
proceedings against the petitioners. It
is not necessary to set out the facts in any detail except to note that on a
complaint filed by the respondent alleging deficiency in service on account of
medical negligence State Commission by its order dated 29.10.94 held the
petitioners to be guilty of professional negligence. Complaint of the respondent was allowed and the first petitioner-
hospital was directed to pay Rs. 3.00 lakhs as compensation and second
petitioner doctor was ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Both the petitioners were directed to pay
cost of Rs. 5,000/- each. It was also
ordered that the aforesaid amounts shall be paid to the complainant with
interest @ 18% per annum till realization.
Both
the petitioners came in appeal before this Commission and by interim order
dated 13.2.95 stay was granted of the impugned order of the State commission on
the condition that the Petitioners shall deposit the amount in any nationalized
bank by way of fixed deposit taken in the name of complainant and the said
fixed deposit receipt shall be deposited with the Registry of the State
Commission, Mumbai within a period of one month from the date of the
order. It is stated that in terms of
that order FDR was taken and placed with the State Commission for safe custody
and that FDR was being renewed from time to time. The petitioners had filed appeals. Both the appeals were dismissed by this Commission by order dated
17.4.2002 with costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the appeals. The order of the State Commission was
affirmed.
In
the execution petition filed by the complainant State Commission directed that
whole of the amount as awarded be paid with interest @18% per annum till
realization. It is against this
impugned order that the petitioners have now come before us in revision. It is
the submission of Mr. Gopal Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners that once
having asked to take the FDR which was kept with the State Commission and
whatever the interest had accrued thereon only was payable to the complainant
and not @ 18% per annum. We are unable
to accept this contention. Perhaps Mr.
Jain is under certain misconception where under the Civil Procedure Code amount
deposited in terms of decree interest ceases on that amount. This is not the situation here. Petitioners sought stay of the uimpugned
order and on a condition of their taking FDR stay was granted. But that amount was not deposited in the
State Commission in that sense and the complainant had no right to withdraw
that amount. The order of the National
Commission safeguarded the amount if ultimately appeal was to be allowed. There is no parallel between what happened
here and the deposit made in the civil court on its own by the judgment debtor
where decree holder is free to withdraw the amount. Order of the State Commission passed on the complaint filed by
the complainant and affirmed by this Commission clearly states that interest is
payable @ 18% per annum. There cannot
be any difference of opinion. Approach
of the State Commission is correct.
This
petition has no merit and it is dismissed.
..J
(D.P.
WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
..
(RAJYALAKSHMI
RAO)
MEMBER
(B.K.
TAIMNI )
MEMBER
.
(K.S.GUPTA)
MEMBER