The respondent has come to the Council /Commission with unclean hands: (i) Deliberate non-disclosure of relevant information (Suppresio Vary) and (ii) Deliberately resorting to falsehood to obtain a favorable order (Suggestio Falsi).

When litigant comes to the Court and deliberately does not disclose relevant information and resort to falsehood with intentions of obtaining fraudulently an order favorable to him, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, the complaint should be dismissed with costs.

Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act was amended by the Amendment Act of 1993 w.e.f. 18.6.1993. The amended Section 26 reads as under:

“Section 26: Dismissal of frivolous or vexatious complaints–

Where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may be specified in the order.”

According to the provisions of Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, the penal costs up to INR 10,000/- shall be levied on the complainant which is to be paid to the opposite party (i.e. the doctor) in case the complaint is found to be frivolous and vexatious.

• Even before the Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Acct was amended, in the matter titled as “Miss Gurpreet Kaur (Minor) versus R. K. Bhutani (Dr.), 1993 (3) CPR 409 (NCDRC), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had awarded costs of INR 7,500/- to the opposite party i.e. the doctor wherein it was held that:

“The complainant had put forward a false plea, suppressed material facts relating to earlier operation and had failed to prove any negligence on the part of the opposite party i.e. ophthalmic surgeon.”