Dropadi Chikitsalaya vs Sheela Devi & Anr

R.K. Agrawal, J

This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. at Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") whereby the Appeal No.882/2016, filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party has been dismissed on the grounds of non-appearance, non-removal of the defects and filing of the Appeal without depositing the statutory amount required under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Facts giving rise to filing of the Complaint before the District Forum are that Respondent No.1/Complainant No.1 (aged 35 years) was two-months pregnant. She climbed on the roof carrying wheat and after some time she felt pain and the bleeding started. Respondent No.2/Complainant No.2 took her to the Petitioner Nursing Home, where he was told that his wife had suffered miscarriage and requires treatment for its cleaning. After the treatment, she was prescribed certain medicines and discharged. For this, the Complainants paid ₹15,000/- to the Petitioner.

Thereafter, the Complainants planned to undergo sterilization (Nasbandi) and approached the Petitioner, who gave some medicine. After taking medicine for two days, the Petitioner examined the Respondent No.1 and advised surgery. He also informed that if the operation is not done, Respondent No.1 may die. On the request of Respondent No.2 for operation, Petitioner asked to deposit ₹25,000/- and get some tests done from Astha Diagnostic, Near Railway Crossing Taxi Stand, Dullahpur, Gazipur. Complainants deposited ₹3,000/- with Astha Diagnostics for test 6 Adad and requested to give the report in two days. Complainants paid ₹25,000/- to the Petitioner along with the reports from Astha Diagnostic. Operation was performed and after about more than three hours, Respondent No.1 was brought out of the Operation Theatre in senseless condition. Petitioner had advised to give Khichri to Respondent No.1 for three days. After three days, latrine started coming out from the wound instead of its natural way. On approaching the Petitioner, it was told that the intestine has burst. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 along with Pradhan Anuj Kumar Jaiswal and 7-8 persons reached the hospital, before whom, the Petitioner admitted that some mistake had been committed by him while performing the operation. As the condition of Respondent No.1 was deteriorating, under pressure, Petitioner took her to the Ayushman Hospital and Trauma Centre, 25/53, Alaipur City Station, Varanasi on 24.4.2013 at around 8.30 p.m. Respondent No.1 was discharged on 6.5.2013 from Ayushman Hospital and Trauma Centre on the advice of Dr.Amitabh Agarwal that dressing will be done by the Petitioner and when the wound will heal, the operation will be performed. Respondent No.2 along with Pradhan and other persons went to Dr.S.N. Prasad National Nursing Home, Mau on 6.5.2013 where Dr.S.N. Prasad examined Respondent No.1 and informed that veins of the intestine have been cut, which had no connection with the uterus. He advised to take Respondent No.1 to B.H.U. or P.G.I. as no one else can treat her here. It is stated that till date, latrine and urine are passing through the wound.

Alleging deficiency in service by the Petitioner, Complaint No.177/2013 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gazipur (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum"), which concluded that the Petitioner, being an Ayurvedic doctor, was not competent to perform any kind of surgery and allowed the Complaint with a direction to the Petitioner to pay ₹3,75,000/- to the Respondents towards compensation and costs within two months from the date of the order failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be paid on the said amount.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, Petitioner filed Appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed.

There is a delay of 633 days in filing the present Revision Petition, which is over and above the period of 90 days statutorily given to file the Revision Petition. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Fora are required to decide the cases in summary manner within a time frame, i.e., within 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no expert evidence is required to be taken, and, within 150 days, wherever expert evidence is required to be taken. The only reason given for condonation of delay is that the Counsel for the Petitioner, who had received the certified copy of the order of the State Commission somewhere in December 2016, informed the Petitioner about the dismissal of the Appeal only on 3.12.2018, which led to the said delay in filing of the Revision Petition. We are not satisfied with the cause shown.

In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority - IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) it has been held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that a special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing Appeals and Revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the Appeals and Revisions, which are highly belated, are entertained. Relevant observations are as under:

"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras."

The delay of 633 days cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.