AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for both sides, and perused the material on record.
This is a case of alleged medical negligence, resulting in 'whitish patches' and other complications to the patient - complainant.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 31.07.2014 dismissed the complaint at admission stage as being barred by limitation.
The complainant appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission set aside the Order of District Forum and remitted the case back to the District Forum with observations as below:
We are of the opinion that the findings of the lower Forum is against law and the contentions stated in the complaint were not considered by the Forum, even though the findings of the lower Form is true to some extent. They didn't consider the contention of the complainant in the complaint in Para 13, that is cause of action arise on 09/09/2012" the date on which three months consumption of medicine ends and the complaint is filed within the period of limitation.
We are of the opinion that in such circumstances the question of limitation can be considered and decided only after taking evidence of both parties. We make it clear that the lower Forum should consider the question of limitation only after taking evidence in the case.
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order in CC 237/2014 dated 31/07/2014 in the file of District Forum, Thiruvananthapuram dismissing the complaint in admission stage as barred by limitation. As the complaint is found not barred by limitation on the basis of the averments in the complaint, the Forum shall take back the complaint on file and proceed in accordance with law.
(extract from the State Commission's Order)
This revision petition has been filed by the opposite party - Centre for Dermatology and Cosmetology under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 03.02.2017 of the State Commission.
We are of the considered view that this dispute, of alleged medical negligence, and of the facts and specificities inherent therein, should, as far as (lawfully) feasible, be comprehensively and holistically examined on merit before the forum of original jurisdiction (District Forum), with the affording of the due opportunity to all the parties involved, and it should also be speedily disposed of, without unwarranted and unnecessary impediments.
In our considered view, delay, if any, in filing the complaint, should not become the primary focus in the adjudication of the complaint, the primary focus should remain to be what it should be, that is, the due adjudication on merit.
To rest the question of limitation, in the light of the above brief adjudication, and in the interest of justice, and to prevent miscarriage of justice, we condone the delay, if any, in filing he complaint before the District Forum, and request the District Forum to adjudicate the complaint on merit.
We are consciously refraining from entering into the consumer dispute, or making any critique of the facts and specificities of the case, or recording any observations or comments etc., since the complaint has as yet to be adjudicated on merit by the District Forum and we do not in any manner want to colour the vision of the District Forum.
Both sides are directed to appear before the District Forum on 03.11.2019.
The District Forum is requested to proceed further with the adjudication of the complaint on merit as per the law.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order to the District Forum forthwith.