RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Revision No.136 of 2009

S.R.M.S. Medical College (S.R.M.S. College),

Abhaypur, Nainital Road, Police Station Bhojipura,

Pargana, Tehsil and District Bareilly through its

Chairman Sri Dev Murti.                           …… Revisionist.

Versus

1- Abdul Jabbar s/o Hazi Abdul Gaffar,

    R/o Bazaria Inayatganj, House No.7,

    Old City, Bareilly.

2- Dr. Sharad Khandelwal c/o S.R.M.S. Medical

    College, Abhaypur, Nainital Road, Police Station

    Bhojipura, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bareilly.

3- Dr. Rajeev c/o S.R.M.S. Medical College,

    Abhaypur, Nainital Road, Police Station Bhojipura,

    Pargana, Tehsil and District Bareilly.   ….Opp. Parties.   

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon'ble Sri R.K. Gupta, Member.

Sri Ashok Sinha, Ld. counsel for the Revisionist.

Sri Arun Tandan, Ld. counsel for the OP No.1.

Date  6.7.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member.- Aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.2009 passed by the Ld. DCDRF-I, Bareilly in Complaint Case No.359 of 2008, the revisionist  S.R.M.S. Medical College, Abhaypur, Nainital Road, Police Station Bhojipura, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bareilly through its Chairman Sri Dev Murti has filed the instant revision under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No.68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law and is against the basic principles of law, justice, equity and fair play and,

(2)

therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside, otherwise the revisionist will suffer irreparable loss. It has been contended that the complaint was barred by the period of limitation under Section 24-A of the Act 68 of 1986 yet the Forum below rejected its application for dismissal of the complaint on ground of limitation and, therefore, the impugned order dated 31.7.2009 is bad in the eye of law.  In support of this contention, the revisionist has filed a ruling laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), 2009(3) CPR 784 (SC).

We have heard the parties and have gone through the records carefully. From perusal of the records, it transpires that one Shri Sagheer Ahmad, son of the complainant Sri Abdul Jabbar received burn injuries and was initially admitted at Ganga Charan Hospital, Bareilly for treatment. He was shifted to S.R.M.S. Medical College on 12.9.2005 for advanced treatment. Whereas,  he was kept in ICU and was operated upon during the course of treatment but unfortunately he expired on 5.10.2005. It has been alleged the death took place due to negligent manner of handling the patient and remisses in providing the required/timely treatment. Aggrieved by this gross remiss, the complainant Sri Abdul Jabbar (father of the deceased) filed complaint case no.359 of 2008 before the Forum below claiming compensation for medical negligence.

The revisionst/OPs, instead of filing W.S. raised preliminary objection pertaining to period of limitation. Its

case is that the death of Sagheer Ahmad took place on

(3)

5.10.2005 and, therefore, the complaint should have been filed within two years as provided under Section 24 A of the Act 68 of 1986. The period of limitation was upto 5.10.2007, whereas the complaint was filed on 17.12.2008. Thus, it was barred by limitation for about 15 months.

The parties were heard by the Forum below on the point of limitation. It rejected the application and condoned the delay with the observation that "court should not adopt a pedantic attitude towards condonation of delay, if any, as a meritorious matter may be thrown out at the very threshold which may cause justice being defeated" as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1997 (SC) 1353:1998 (7) SCC 123. It held that sufficient cause had been shown which warranted condonation. It  further held that "apart from settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a complaint once admitted for adjudication, the same has to be proceeded with and brought to logical conclusion as held in I(2005) CPJ 253. In the instant matter, the complaint was formally admitted for adjudication and, therefore, it had to be proceeded with for favour of logical conclusion.

          We have gone through the impugned order very carefully. The complainant has given cogent explanation  for the delay and has alleged that the delay was due to false assurances given by the revisionist Medical College for amicable settlement of the matter whereby they were actually buying time for the purposes of limitation. The proof of "Sufficient Cause" is a discretionary jurisdiction,

(4)

vested in the Fora under Section 24 A of the Act, and the Ld. Forum below, after considering all relevant facts, circumstances and evidence has held that 'Sufficient Cause' had been shown. It considered the explanation for delay as satisfactory and, therefore, condoned the same in the interest of proper adjudication.   In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that the ruling laid down in IV (2005) CPJ 1 (SC) is not applicable in the instant matter. The Hon'ble Apex Court has recently held in Shatti Pardesi Samadhi & Pillayar Temple vs. M. Shakuntala (Dead) through LRs and Ors. (2015) 5 SCC 674 that question of limitation which required enquiry into facts can not be tried as preliminary issues. In the instant case, the Forum below has dealt with the matter at length and has condoned the delay for proper adjudication. There is no irregularity, illegality or remiss in the order and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. Consequently, the revision, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed with costs.   

ORDER

          The revision, being meritless, is dismissed with costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

The parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 16.8.2015.    

               (A.K. Bose)                           (R.K. Gupta)

           Presiding Member                        Member    

Jafri

PA-II Court No.4