M/s Indus Hospitals vs Rajeev Lochan Singh

IA No. 10112 and 10412 of 2022

1)  These are the two applications seeking Condonation of delay in filing the present Revision Petitions by the Petitioner “Indus Hospital”, against whom the Original Consumer Case No. 102 of 2014 was allowed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum II at Vishakhapatnam on 24.07.2017, and compensation to the tune of Rs. 12 lakhs apart from litigation costs of Rs. 10,000 were awarded in favour of the Respondent/ Complainant by the District Forum. The present Petitioner along with original Respondent No. 2 namely Dr. Jaya Sai Sekhar B. being aggrieved by the District Forum’s Order filed First Appeal No. 25 of 2018 before the Ld. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Vijayawada, while the Respondent/ Complainant from his side independently filed First Appeal No. 620 of 2018 against the self-same Order of the Ld. District Forum, since he was dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded to him.

2) The Ld. State Commission disposed off both those Appeal vide its impugned Order passed on 01.07.2022. The Petitioner’s First Appeal No. 25 of 2018 was dismissed, while the Respondent/ Complainants’ First Appeal No. 620 of 2018 was allowed in part by modifying the Order of the Ld. District Forum, and enhancing the compensation of Rs. 12 lakhs awarded to him by the said Forum to Rs. 15 lakhs, apart from Rs. 10,000/- towards costs.

3) The present Revision Petitions were then filed  after certain amount of delay in each case, for Condonation of which the instant application have been filed.

4) Although, while considering the matter initially in the Division Bench we had heard submissions of the parties to a certain extent, on 08.05.2023, the matter was deferred to 30.08.2023 for hearing as the Petitioner side was directed to satisfy the Bench on certain medical related issues, while the Respondent/ Complainant was who has all along been appearing ‘in person’ was called upon to properly paginate the documents annexed to his written submissions. It may also be observed that the paper book as filed did not contain many vital documents, on account of which on 28.11.2022, the Ld. Presiding Member since sitting singly had directed that original record from the lower fora be requisitioned. Such records were however, not received on account of which firstly on 10.02.2023, the Division Bench again ordered the same to be requisitioned. But on the next date a report was received from the Ld. District Forum to the effect that the record in question could not be traced out on account of which permission was sought to reconstruct the same. The Division Bench however, declined such permission as it was of the opinion that in any case it was for the Petitioner itself to attach the copies of all the documents, which it intended to rely upon in the Revision Petition.

5) When the matter again came up for consideration on 30.08.2023, the Respondent who has been appearing ‘in person’ insisted that the pending applications for Condonation of delay should first be decided before considering merits of the case, which in any case had not emerged very clearly in the absence of the vital documents. The Respondent has filed his detailed written arguments seeking to oppose the present applications and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singal Udyog Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others 2020 (19) Supreme Court Case 154” in which the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that where an Appeal/ Proceeding is found to be barred by time, the Forum concerned could not have dealt with merits of the case. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid decision relied upon by the Respondent, the instant applications are now being taken up for consideration.

6) Revision Petition No. 1380 of 2022 was filed on 28.10.2022, while Revision Petition No. 1417 of 2022 was filed on 07.11.2022. The grounds explaining the delay in each of these Petitions are set out as below:

“After receiving the copy of order on 09.07.2022, the Petitioner has entrusted the matter to one Advocate for the purpose of filing Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court who misplaced the entire file in travelling. Therefore, the Petitioner applied for another certified copy of the impugned Order and the same was received on 22.09.2022. Then matter has been entrusted to present Advocate.

There is a delay of ------- days in filing the present Appeal i.e. from 09.09.2022 to 28.10.2022.

That after getting the certified copy of the impugned Order, the Petitioner was in search of another Advocate for filing the Revision against the said Order and as such the Petitioner could not file the Revision Petition against  the impugned Order within the time prescribed by the law. The delay is neither intentional nor wanton, only due to the above reason.”

7) It is seen that the cryptic ground mentioned in the identical applications is that the “one Advocate” to whom the matter had been entrusted had misplaced the entire file in travelling, on account of which the Petitioner applied for another certified copy of the impugned order which was received on 22.09.2022.

8) The Respondent in his arguments opposing the aforesaid contention has vehemently denied that any such thing could have taken place. Name of the concerned Advocate who had allegedly misplaced the case file while travelling has not even been disclosed in the applications, much less any affidavit by him to make such statements on oath. In fact, the application have been drafted very casually by mentioning in IA NO. 10112 of 2022, that there has been a delay of “20 days” in filing the Revision, but in IA No. 10412 the space for such number of days has been left blank and it has nevertheless been mentioned that the delay is or the period up to 28.10.2022, as had been mentioned in IA No. 10112 of 2022, even though it is a matter of record that Revision Petition No. 1417 of 2022 was filed on 07.11.2022, which was a full 10 days after 28.10.2022.

9) In such circumstances, this Commission has no reason to discard the vehement contentions raised by the Respondent/ Complainant that neither of the two applications are bona fide and that the same have been filed just with a view to harass him and delay the compensation awarded in his favour by both the Ld. fora below, at a stage when he is a senior citizen already having attained the age of 73 years by now.

10) For the aforesaid reasons this Commission finds no justifiable reasons to condone the delay in filing these Revision Petitions.

11) Consequently, the instant applications are dismissed, and so the Original Revision Petitions also stand dismissed as being barred by limitation.

12) Pending applications, if any, automatically stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.