- (1.) The Appellants filed a complaint (Original Petition No. 102 of 2000) before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short 'National Commission').
(2.) The issue pertains to the alleged medical negligence in treating the husband of the first Appellant. It is seen, that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the complaint had filed their response to the complaint, and the Appellants have also filed rejoinder thereto. As far as Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, it appears, notice of the complaint was served on them only towards the end of the year 2009. They have filed their reply on 14.1.2010. Thereafter, several opportunities were given to the Appellants to file rejoinder to the reply filed by opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 in the complaint. Finally, on 26.07.2010, the National Commission, vide its impugned order, dismissed the complaint for want of evidence. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under: Complaint was filed in the year 2000 and despite repeated orders passed on the said dates the complainants have failed to file rejoinder to the written version of Ops 3 and 4 and their affidavits of evidence. It is a case of medical negligence, Sri Pattjoshi states that further time may be allowed to the complainants to do the needful. However, we are not inclined to grant further time to the complainants. Right to file rejoinder and affidavits of evidence is closed. Since there is no evidence in support of the complaint the complaint is dismissed for want of evidence. There is hardly any occasion to allow Sri Pattjoshi to argue the complaint. No order as to costs.
(3.) Thereafter, the Appellants filed miscellaneous application No. 859 of 2010 requesting the National Commission to recall the aforesaid order dated 26.7.2010. That application was also dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2010. The said order reads as under: Complainants have filed this application for recalling the order dated 26.7.2010 whereby the complaint was dismissed which is being contested by opposite parties No. 3 and 4. We have heard the parties counsel and have been taken through the order dated 26.7.2010. This order would show that for the reason disclose in details in the order itself the evidence of the complainant was closed and the complaint was, therefore, dismissed for want of evidence. For the reasons recorded in the order itself, we are not inclined to recall the said order and restore the complaint to its number. Application is accordingly dismissed.;