AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The dispute relates to 2012, we are in 2019.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners no. 1 to 6 - state government authorities and the petitioner no. 7 - doctor, and perused the material on record.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 06.02.2014 had allowed the complaint:
ORDER
Hence, on the basis of entire aforesaid discussion by allowing the Complaint of Complaint it is hereby ordered that Complainant is entitled to get whatever benefit accrue to her under the context of Opposite Party No.8-the Insurance Company's 'Special Contingency Policy'. At the same time the employees of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 7 are responsible for not conducting proper examination about the Complainant's pregnancy and conducting her Nusbandi Operation and after Nusbandi Operation due to their misunderstood and negligent act to her third child was born for which there is deficiency of service of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 7. On the basis of his deficiency of service the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,50,000/- by way of compensation on account of suffering financial, mental and physical agony and Rs.2500/- by way of expenses of Complaint.
The Opposite parties are hereby ordered that they shall make available the DD/crossed cheque of the aforesaid entire amount at the residential address of the complainant, within a period of one month.
(extract from the District Forum's Order)
(as per the translated copy furnished by the revisionist)
The State Commission vide its Order dated 03.06.2016 had partially modified the award made by the District Forum:
ORDER
- - - The conclusion arrived at by the Ld. DCF has not been challenged on the facts as it has been admitted that sterilization operation was conducted on 23.05.2006 and the complainant thereafter delivered a child on 19.01.2007. Thus it was a clear case of sterilization operation failure. The Govt. of India had taken a policy for compensation from the Oriental Insurance Company in case failure of sterilization operation and complainant was entitled to Rs.20,000/- as compensation for failure of sterilization operation. This amount was not paid by the Insurance Company and complainant had to file this complaint before the Ld. DCF.
Thus we do not wish to interfere with the order regarding compensation for failure of sterilization operation passed by the ld. DCF.
The Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount to the complainant along with interest @9% from the date of complaint within one month. This appeal is partially allowed.
(extract from the State Commission's Order)
To begin with, the application for condonation of delay was considered.
The revision has been filed with self-admitted delay of 190 days against the said Order dated 03.06.2016 of the State Commission (The Registry has reported a delay of 673 days). The stated reasons for delay in filing the revision, as mentioned in paras 2 to 8 of the application for condonation of delay, are as below:
That the Hon'ble. State Commission delivered the impugned judgment on 03.06.2016. Immediately thereafter, petitioner herein filed an application seeking clarification in judgment and order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Hon'ble State Commission in Appeal No. 489/2014 as from the comparison of orders passed by the District Forum and the impugned order it was unclear as to what is the liability of the petitioners herein. The Hon'ble State Commission was pleased to clarify the order dated 03.06.2016 as sought. Copy of the Misc. Application No. 36/2016 and order dated 27.01.2017 passed in Misc. Application No. 36/2016 are marked and annexed as Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-7.
That the Law Department sought opinion from the counsel therein as to whether a revision petition can be preferred against the said impugned order or not. The counsel therein opined that some questions of law were not properly considered by the Hon'ble Commission and the same could be raised through a Revision Petition.
That thereafter the Law Department processed the file and issued instructions in favour of the undersigned counsel to file revision petition before this National Commission, New Delhi. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complete records of the case including the impugned order was sent to the undersigned counsel in the month of June, 2018.
That the relevant documents were sorted out and sent for translation as the same were in vernacular and the English translated copy was received by the undersigned counsel in the second week of July, 2018.
That some time was taken to prepare the draft of the Revision Petition and thereafter the concerned Officer-in-Charge was called to approve/make necessary amendments, if any, in the draft Revision Petition. The Officer-in-Charge contacted the office of the counsel in the third week of July, 2018 and the draft of the Revision Petition so prepared was approved and accordingly the affidavit was executed before the notary and the same is filed without any further delay.
That the delay thus caused in approaching this Hon'ble Commission is not intentional or deliberate. It is only for the bonafide reasons mentioned herein above.
That the cause of the petitioner being good on merits, the condonation of delay as stated is necessary to meet the ends of justice.
(paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the application for condonation of delay)
The Act 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes (Statement of Objects and Reasons). The period of limitation to file revision petition is 90 days (Regulation 14(1)(i) of the Regulations 2005). This revision petition has been filed with admitted delay of (further)190 days.
It is noted that the stated reasons for delay, as enunciated in the application for condonation of delay, and as reproduced, verbatim, in toto, in para 5 above, (only) point towards managerial inefficiency and a perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, they are illogical and absurd to explain convincingly and cogently the day-to-day delay in filing the revision.
No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay is visible.
This bench however wants to also satisfy itself that there would be no miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. The revision has been filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below. The bench notes the operative portions of the District Forum's and State Commission's Orders (quoted in paras 2 and 3 above). Without attempting to examine or adjudicate on the Order of the District Forum or of the State Commission on merit, this bench but does not find any reason visible to convince it that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned.
The application for condonation of delay, being unconvincing and devoid of merit, is dismissed. Resultantly the revision petition is dismissed on limitation.
Needless to add that the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law.
A copy of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the complainant by the Registry within ten days.