Shaikh Zakiruddin vs VIJAY

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner heard. The State Commission passed the following order: None for the appellant as well as the respondent are present. Their respective Counsel are also absent, The record reflects that the appellant as well as his Counsel are also absent since 8.10.2012. However, on last date the matter was adjourned till today by way of last chance subject to condition of depositing cost of Rs. 500 in the ''legal aid account'' of this Commission. But the same is not complied with. On the contrary, the appellant as well as his Counsel are absent. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed in default. Hence it be recalled at 3.00 p.m. for order.

MATTER is recalled at 3.30 p.m. but nobody for the appellant is present. So also the respondent. We have perused the copy of impugned judgment and order and also the copies of complaint and we find that the impugned ex parte judgment and order is just, legal and proper. Therefore, no interference is warranted. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. 2. After this order, the revision petition was filed which is further delayed by 181 days. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in paras 3 and 4 of the application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced as under:

That the petitioner was seriously ill due to serious illness he was advised to take bed rest by the doctor from 12.3.2013 to 14.11.2013 and therefore, could not contact to his Counsel representing him in the State Commission and due to which some delay is caused in filing the present revision petition which is not intentional and deliberate and the copy of medical certificate is annexed with the present revision.

THE petitioner submits that the matter was dismissed in default and no intimation was given by his Advocate and he could not contact his Advocate due to illness and due to the said reason and unavoidable circumstances some delay is caused in filing the present revision petition and in the facts and circumstances narrated above which was beyond the control of petitioner herein the Hon''ble Commission may be condoned the present revision petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the fact that the doctor has certified that the petitioner was lying sick from 12.3.2013. He has filed the medical certificate which is issued by one Dr. S. M. Sarosia, M.B.B.S., D.C.P., M.D. (Patho.), Registration No. 29682 Barudgarnala, Aurangabad -431001 wherein it is mentioned that the patient was suffering from cervical spondylitis from 12.3.2013 to 14.11.2013. It was further mentioned that he is medically fit to resume his duties/work/school w.e.f. 15.11.2013. It, therefore, means that the Doctor has got printed the documents and he is not an expert in this specialty to advise and treat such patient, which related to orthopedic. The medical certificate appears to be false. The matter be reported to the Medical Council with the request that such like doctor should be debarred from issuing such like certificates when they are not expert in the specific field, A copy of this order be sent to the Medical Council of India along with photocopy of medical certificate. Moreover, as per the certificate, the appellant was not able to attend the Commission from 12.3.2013.

Now let us turn to the impugned order it mentions that nobody appeared before the Commission since 8.10.2012, The explanation of five months is not satisfactory. The application for condonation of delay is subsequently silent about the same. The matter is barred by time This view is supported by following authorities in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, : I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) : I (2009) SLT 701 and Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., : AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Bikram Pass v. Financial Commissioner and Others,, AIR 1977 SC 1221.

IN Banshi v. Lakshmi Narain,, 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the Counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer''s office and enquired about the case. In Jaswant Singh v. Assistant Registrar, Co -operative Societies, : 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83, it was observed that cause of delay was that the Counsel of the appellant in the lower Court had told them that there was no need of their coming to Court and they would be informed of the result, as and when the decision comes, was held to be a story which cannot be believed

IN Bhandari Dass v. Sushila, : 1997 (2) Raj LW 845, it was held that accusing the lawyer that he did not inform the client about the progress of the case nor has did he send any letter, was disbelieved while rejecting an application to condone delay.

IT is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se, negligence of a litigant''s agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay. In view of this position of law, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. The Registry is directed to report to Medical Council of India, as already ordered, S.M. Kantikar, Member

I agree with the findings and I want to add few remarks.

DR . S.M. Sarosia is a pathologist, who is competent in diagnostic services but not in therapeutic aspects. He issued the certificate (Annexure P -5) with a disease mentioned as ''Cervical Spondylitis''. This certificate neither mentions any details of treatment nor supported by Radiological findings (X -ray/CT). The period of rest was approximately for 9 months. Medical certificates are legal documents. Medical practitioners who deliberately issue a false, misleading or inaccurate certificate could face disciplinary action under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002.

IN our view, issuing medical certificate with advice of bed rest for long duration of about 9 months, needs specialist in Orthopedics/Neurosurgery. In this case, the certificate was issued by a Pathologist, created many doubts in our mind, whether the pathologist is competent/authorized to issue such certificate. Certainly, it amounts to violation of Medical Ethics and appears to be a case of Medical Malpractice/Professional Misconduct.

THEREFORE , we seek an appropriate action from the Medical Council of India, The copy of this order along with the copy of Medical Certificate be sent to MO, New Delhi. It is further directed that Medical Council of India, New Delhi should send compliance report in this case to the Registrar of this Commission within 90 days otherwise, it will tantamount to contempt of Court. The revision petition stands dismissed accordingly