Record is taken up for passing order on the point whether the case is barred u/sec 24 A o the C P Act, 1986.

The complainant has filed this complaint on the ground that he  had been suffering from abdominal pain and came to Dr P. Sinha for treatment for his abdominal pain and as per advice of this doctor the USG  test of the complainant was done at Contai. Doctor opined that he had appendicitis and needs operation for its removal. For his satisfaction the complainant consulted the OP no.1  Dr. Alok Kumar Shee at Tamluk. The OP no.1 consulted the USG report and concluded that he needs operation and accordingly asked the complainant to get admitted in the OP no 2 Nursing Home. The complainant got admitted on 28.07.2010 and in the evening OP no.1 operated the appendicitis by open surgery. The complainant was then discharged from the nursing home on 03.08.2010. After 4/5days thereof, the complainant could not urinate normally and felt vomiting and pain in the abdomen. The complainant again came to the OPs who in their turn made necessary treatment and discharged the patient on 13.08.2010. During this second time admission, some pathological tests were done as per advice of Dr. Asfak Ahmed and said doctor opined after perusing the pathological reports that both kidneys of the complainant have been infected due to improper operation and medical negligence of the OPs. On 14.08.2010 the complainant attended the Fortis Hospital  under department of Nephrology  and was advised for dialysis. But the complainant could not meet the dialysis and came back to home and is now under treatment of one Homeopathic doctor Dr. Basumita Acharya and gradually he is recovering the ill symptoms. On 24.07.2013  the complainant was examined by Dr Malay Kumar Bera at Kalkata who opined that acute renal failure has been caused due to negligent and improper operation by the OPs. The OPs took a a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- for such operation of the complainant along with other costs and the complainant has incurred a total sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- till date for his recovery due to the medical negligence of the OPs.

            Now the complainant is facing acute financial crisis as  he could not move  to deal with any business or work and is suffering from acute mental  agony and hence, he has file this complaint case with a prayer for a direction upon the OPs to pay him compensation to the tune of  Rs. 10,000,00/-  and other reliefs.

           Both the OPs have  filed a petition contending that the case is barred by limitation U/Sec 24 A of the CP Act,1986 as the complainant has filed this case after two years from the cause of action. The cause of action of this case is not continuing one because the complainant is not under treatment on and from 14.08.2010 to 24.08.2013 which is more than two years and the complainant did not produce any document of treatment wherefrom Ld. Forum could find that the complainant is under treatment.

The complainant contested this application of the OPs and filed written objection and also denied the version of the OPs.

            Now it is the question whether the complaint is barred under Section 24 A of the CP Act 1986 ?

            We have heard the submission of ld Advocate for both the parties.

            Ld advocate for the OPs pointed out that after August,  2010 the complainant could not produce any document to show  that he was under treatment of the Ops till 06.03.2016 , ie more than two and a half years from the date of cause of action. Hence the case should be dismissed U/Sec 24 A of the C P Act.

           Ld advocate for the complainant referred a decision reported in 2017 (4) CPR 240 (NC) wherein it had been held that medical negligence may constitute continuous cause of action. In that case the complaint was dismissed in the District Forum as because the complaint had been filed after delay of 11 months and 8 days of the cause of action. Hon’ble State Commission of Maharastra Dispute Redressal Commission, set aside the judgment of the Forum and allowed the Appeal with the observation that cause of action was continuous since  11.022011  wherein the complainant was treatment for a long time which was finally diagnosis in the year 2014. Being aggrieved  the OP preferred Revision before the National Commission and National Commission also held that there was no irregularity  in the well reasoned order of the State Commission and was pleased to dismiss the Revision.

            But in this present case  it appears that the complainant was admitted in the OP no. 2 nursing home on 28.07.2010 and was discharged on 03.08.2010. He was again admitted in the said nursing home and was discharged on 13.08.2010.

            Annexure I shows that the complainant was admitted in the Nursing Home from 280.07.2010 to 03.08.2010. Annexure II shows that the complainant was again admitted on 08.08.2010 in the OP no. 2 Nursing  Home  and was discharged on 13.08.2010. Thereafter, as per Annexure III dated 14.08.2010 it appears that the complainant took some tests in the Fortis Hospital. After 13.08.2010 the complainant could not show any document of treatment under the OPs. Annexure V is the document which shows that treatment of the complainant continued from 13.08.10 to 24.07.2013. Only from Annexure VI  it appears that  one Dr. Malay Kumar Bera  prescribed some medicines  to the complainant for renal problem. From the report of Eko Nuclear Imaging Centre, dated 26.07.2013 which is a radionuclide Renogram report it appears that after renal scan it was found that both kidneys were of average size with uniform cortical uptake of radiotracer.  The impression was 1) both kidneys are of average size and shape with normal perfusion and normal cortical function There is no evidence of obstruction in either kidney and 2) Total GFR estimated 7555 ml/minute (Normal 70 to 120 ml/minute. Differential function: Left Kidney 42.04 % and right Kidney 57.96 %.  The other documents filed by the complainant are dated 10.03.13 and 10.06.2016.

            Not only that the ld advocate for the  Ops also  pointed out that there inter pollution  in the date portion of the back of the prescription issued by Modern Homeopath Clinic and it appears that  the complainant failed to prove  prima facie  that there was any nexus between  the Xerox copy the prescription dated 10.03.2013  filed by the complainant and the documents  filed by the complainant in connection with his operation by the OPs on 28.07.2010 , 08.08.2010, 13.08.2010 and also 14.08.2010. 

So we can safely say that the complainant could not produce any document of treatment from the Ops concerned from 13.08.2010 to 24.07.2013 and beyond when lastly the complainant had been tested by one Malay Kumar Bera.

In this connection we want to refer a decision reported ion 2018 (1) CPR 368 (NC) wherein it has been held that it is trite that when a subject constitutes prescribed a particular period of limitation, it is to be construed strictly and observed scrupulously. Section 24 A of the CP Act, 1986 says that the District Forum , 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.

           Ld advocate for the complainant has contended that the cause of  this case is continuing one, but we find that there is no continuous cause of action in the present case against the OPs and the case is  barred by Limitation U/Sec 24 of the C Pact, 1986.

              Hence, it is ordered,

            That the CC No 72 of 2018 be and the same is dismissed against the Ops  being  barred by Limitation U/Sec 24 A of C P Act, 1986.

            Parties do bear their respective costs.