Order No.05                   Date-30.06.2022

            Record is put up for order in respect of Miscellaneous Application dated 24.03.2022 filed by the complainant praying for condonation of delay in filing the complaint.

            In course of hearing Ld.  Counsel for the complainant submitted that notice dated 18.12.2019 was sent to the OP-3 with a request to refund Rs. 1,000/- as operation charge and on accout of covid-19 pandemic cosnsumer complaint could not file within the stipulated period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Hence, the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint.

            Per contra, Ld. Counsel appearing for the OPs 1, 3 & 4 submitted that the allegations made in the complaint petition are false and concocted. He further contended that the father of the complainant was admitted to OP-1 Chittaranjan National Canser Institure (Hospital) on 19.12.2014 and he was discharged on 10.01.2015. Complainant has filed the present complaint after severn years from the date of discharge from Hospital. Thus, the case is barred by limitation U/s 69 of the CP Act, 2019. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous  Application dated 24.03.2022 should be rejected with cost.

            We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and given a thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by them.

            Fact remains that the father of the complainant was admitted to Chittaranjan National Canser Institute (Hospital) on 19.12.2014 treated under OP-2 Dr. Joyanta Chakraborty and deposited Rs. 2,000/- as Bed Rent & Operation Charge. Patient was discharged on 10.01.2015. Allegation of the complaint is that despite letters dated 27.10.2017 and 18.12.2019. OP-3 Director of OP-1 did not refund Rs. 1,000/- as operation charge. Hence, the complaint.

            The Consumer complaint is barred by limitation as provided U/s 69 of the CP Act. Complainant in its complaint have no where mentioned as to on which date, cause of action arose in his favour. Be that as it may, complainant in his complaint has categorically stated that his father was discharged from Hospital  (OP-1) on 10.01.2015 and he issued two letters dated 27.10.2017 and 18.12.2019 to the OP-3 with a request to refund Rs. 1,000/- which was deposited on 20.12.2014 as operation charge and the ground of refund is for non operation of patient. Admittedly, patient was discharged on 10.01.2015 whereas consumer complaint is filed before this commission on 24.03.2022. Therefore, on the fact of it, consumer complaint is barred by limitation. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 deals with this situation which is reproduced as under:-

“Section 69. Limitation Period”

 (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

            (2)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.

            Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."

The above provision is clearly peremptory in nature requiring the Consumer Commission to see at the time of entertaining the complaint, whether it has been filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of cause of action.

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP) took view of the observations made in case State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191, as under:-

Recently, in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries,  2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191, this Court, while dealing with the same provision, has held;

It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, 'shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside."

         In para No.13, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that;

         "The term "cause of action" is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of wide import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. Generally, it is described as "bundle of facts"., which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. Pithily stated, "cause of action" means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. "Cause of action" is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. In the context of limitation with reference to a fire insurance policy, undoubtedly, the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out."

It is well settled that by serving the legal notice or by making representation, the period of limitation cannot be extended by the respondent. In this context, reference can be made to Kandimalla Rahavaiah & Co. (Supra), in which it has been held.

 "By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Insurance Company's reply dated 21st March, 1996 to the legal notice dated 4th January, 1996, declining to issue the forms for preferring a claim after a lapse of more than four years of the date of fire, resulted in extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 24A of the Act. We have no hesitation in holding that the complaint filed on 24th October, 1997 and that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation and the Commission was justified in dismissing it on that short ground."

            The ground made out in the condonation application is not at all satisfactory.  Since the complainant failed to convince us on the limitation point. Therefore, delay condonation application is rejected on contest but without any cost.

Thus, MA being No. 150/2022 is disposed of.

Consequently, the consumer complaint is not admitted and we reject the consumer complaint.