AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
This Revision Petition has been filed, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act,1986’) against the Order dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in FA/16/125, whereby the Appeal filed by the Respondent / OP was allowed and the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’) was set aside and the Complaint was dismissed as time barred.
The District Forum, Durg held the OPs liable for medical negligence causing death of Complainant’s son. It allowed the Complaint and directed the OPs to pay Rs. 15 lakh jointly and severally with the interest at the rate of 12% interest from the date of filing of the Complaint and also allowed Rs. 4 lakh towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.
Being aggrieved, the OPs filed the first Appeal before the State Commission; it was allowed and dismissed the Complaint on the ground of beyond limitation. The relevant observation of the State Commission (actually in Hindi –English translation was filed) is reproduced as below:
“9. The documents have been observed and tested by us. According to the complaint, the son of complainants/respondents named Sujit Prasad was admitted in the Hospital of the non-applicant/appellant on 15.04.2011 on dated 17.04.2011 he was died. The complaint was filed on 14.07.2014 before the District Forum by the complainants/respondents. According to the legal provision of law the complaint may be filed arising the cause of action, within 2 years. The Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act is as under:
xxxxxx……….
.. the complaint ought to have filed before 17.04.2013. The cause of action of the suit arises, when the death of the son of the complainants/ respondents caused death of their son. And the limitation of time will / may be started to count. There is no any reason has been shown in the complaint, for delay of 13 months, the complaint has been filed by the complainants. Neither-not-no any application has been filed to condone the delay under section 24a, Application under Consumer Protection Act. The complaint was time barred, hence it was not considerate, hence it was liable to be rejected/dismissed.”
Being aggrieved, the Complainant challenged the impugned order by filing the instant Revision Petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire material on record, inter alia Orders of District Forum and State Commission.
In the interest of justice and for the fair adjudication, the original record from the District Forum was requisitioned.
We note that, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum after the delay of 13 months from the cause of action, thus admittedly, it was beyond the limitation period as under provision of Section 24 of the Act, 1986. The District Forum ignored the delay and allowed the Complaint on merits.
We have carefully perused the grounds of filing the instant revision petition. The petitioner stated that;
A. Because the Ld. SCDRC has not considered the medical treatment of Mrs. Parwati Prasad@ Parwati Sahu/ complainant no. 1 as well as her son Sh. Sanjay Prasad S/0 Sh. Ashok Sahu since 23-07-2011, 26-07-2011, 31-07- 2011, 27-04-2011, 19-07-2011, 29-08-2011, 30-08-2011, 10-09-2011, 31-01-2012, 17-01-2012, 31-01-2012, 14-07-2012 & 04-12-2012 and onwards the treatment is continued and till today the Complainant No. 1 is suffering from various disease and the husband of the Complainant No. 1 also falsely implicated in a criminal case U/S 395 of the Indian Penal Code and the F.I.R. has been lodged against the complainant no. 2 at the instance of the respondent no. 1 to 3 herein/non-applicants. The revisionist no. 2 is in judicial custody since the date of offence. The revisionist no. 2 is seeking the permission from this Hon'ble Commission that he will submit his affidavit or other documents as part of the pleading to file before this Hon'ble Commission after duly signed by the revisionist no. 2 as well as counter signed of the jail superintendent, Durg, Chhattisgarh. All the medical bills are annexed herewith. The complaint could not file within time during the treatment of the complainant no. 1 as well as her son Sh. Sanjay Prasad. The complainants no. 1 & 2 are suffering from many difficulties and the various disease. Therefore, the present complaint could not file within time as the same is delay of 13 month approximately and the same is filed of 14-07-2014.
This is the case of alleged medical negligence, the Complainant lost her son. Before one forum (District Forum) negligence was attributed to the OPs. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the Petitioner i.e. the mother of the deceased was under treatment for about 1 ½ years for her health ailments between 23.07.2011 to 04.12.2012. The treatment was continued further. Additionally, her husband (Complainant No. 2) was falsely implicated in the criminal case filed by the OPs – 1 to 3 and he was in judicial custody. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the District Forum at delayed stage and it was not an intentional delay. In our view, this is fair and acceptable submission.
The Act 1986 is for better protection of the interests of consumers, in recognisably a fight amongst unequals. Its statement of objects and reasons say of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes” through summary proceedings. In our view the medical negligence cases need holistic approach by giving fair opportunity to both the sides to adduce their respective replies, evidences by filing proper medical record and if needed the expert evidence. The State Commission without considering the circumstances dismissing the Complaint mechanically just on limitation will not serve the purpose the Act, 1986. The Petitioner herein clearly stated that after the death of her son, she was suffering from health problems for a long period. In our view, it was the sufficient ground and explanation to condone the delay in filing the Complaint before the District Forum. Therefore, we condone the delay of 13 months in filing the Complaint before the District Forum.
At this stage, without touching the merits of the instant case, the matter is remitted back to the State Commission to decide the Appeal de novo on merits.
The Revision Petition is allowed.
The Parties on both the sides shall appear before the State Commission on 29.09.2022 for further proceedings.
The Registry is directed to send back the Original record to the State Commission within seven days from today, along with the copy of this Order.
Simultaneously, also email this Order to the State Commission and the parties/their Counsel.