Delay in consumer forum disposal of medical negligence complaints and prescribed measures to prevent such delay and ensure remedy

Inordinate delay in consumer forum disposal of a medical negligence complaint undermines the object of providing a simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy; delay is not a ground to reject a complaint or direct the complainant to a civil court. The consumer forums summary procedure may limit examination of expert witnesses, but where cross-examination is necessary the Commission may use affidavits, suggested questions, video/telephonic conferencing, or order examination at the applicants cost; strict adherence to procedural time limits, administrative appointment of competent members, document-and-affidavit filing rules, and deterrent costs for adjournments are prescribed to avoid delay and ensure timely disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay in disposal of proceedings or the existence of complicated questions of fact/law (requiring expert evidence) are grounds for directing the complainant to seek remedy in a civil court or for staying consumer proceedings pending criminal prosecution.

Analysis: The consumer remedy is an alternative, efficacious and speedy forum created by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 3 preserves the right to approach civil courts but does not make delay or summary procedure per se a bar. Section 13 and Section 13(4) permit summary disposal, reception of evidence on affidavits, issuance of commissions and confer powers analogous to a civil court for discovery and witness examination. Time-limits for filing the opposite party's version (30 days with limited extension) and the statutory scheme aim to ensure expeditious disposal; procedural measures (production of documents with pleadings, affidavits, limited adjournments, cross-examination by commission/commissioner or by written questions, use of video/telephone conferences) can address expert evidence without transferring the dispute to civil courts. Administrative measures and constitution of benches (Section 20/24B) and authority to regulate adjournments and costs are appropriate remedies to prevent inordinate delays.

Conclusion: The consumer forum proceedings need not be stayed or the complainant sent to civil court merely because of delay or the presence of issues requiring expert evidence; the Commission has discretion to adopt procedural devices to deal with expert evidence and to ensure expeditious disposal. The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the National Commission is affirmed, which is therefore in favour of the Respondent.

---