BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 68/11.
THIS THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Rajesh @ Rajasab Hatti S/o. Chand Pasha, age:
40 years, Occ: Nil R/o. H.No. 13/12 Jatti Line Hutti village, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Dr. P. Sivaram, M.S. DNB (ORTHO)
Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon C/o. Krishna Hospital, 21/11 Road, Adoni, Dist; Kurnool.
2. Dr. Brahmanand Y. MBBS, D-ORTHO Orthopedic Surgeon, G.M. Hospital, Hutti Gold Mines Ltd., Hutti village, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
3. The Managing Director, Rajeev Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital, Apollo Hospital Group Hyderabad Road, Raichur.
Date of institution :- 02-09-11.
Date of disposal :- 22-11-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. C. Pandu, Advocate.
Respondent No-1 represented by Sri. Avaneesh Taranath, Advocate.
Respondent No-2 represented by Sri. I.M. Patil, Advocate.
Respondent No-3 represented by Sri. C.Keshavarao, Advocate.
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
ORDER ON IA-2 & 3.
IA-2 filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay of (1) years (6) months (10) days in filing his complaint
IA-3 filed by the opposite U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act for to dismiss the complaint as it is time barred complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case in IA-2 are that, opposite No-1 & 2 are the doctors working in the institution of opposite No-3 in the year 2008. He got operated by opposite No-1 & 2 in the hospital of opposite No-3 for bilateral vascular necrosis of hip joint on 21-02-08, after operation he was advised to take various medicines, thereafter he got checkup with opposite No-1 & 2 as and when directed to him. But the operation conducted by them failed, medicines prescribed by them were also not made any improvement in his health condition, accordingly he consulted a local doctor by name Harish Kumar and he got treated with him, as per his diagnosis the said operation failed due to negligence of the doctor, his health condition became precarious. He suffered mentally and financial loss, as such he filed this complaint against the opposites for certain reliefs as noted in his complaint.
3. The brief facts of the IA-3 filed by the opposite No-3 are that, as contended by the complainant himself, he got operated on 21-02-08 and was discharged on 03-03-08. Hence, this complaint is filed after lapse of two years and thereby it is barred by limitation. The nature of the deceased shown in IA-2 is quite different to the nature of the allegations made in his complaint, as such, it is requested to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. Objections to IA-2 are similar to the contents of IA-3. Hence heard these two applications together and passed this common order for to avoid repetition.
5. In view of the contentions and rival contentions of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant has made out proper, sufficient and good grounds for to condone the delay of (1) years (6) months (10) days, as noted in IA-2.
2. Whether this complaint is barred by limitation as contended
in IA-3.
3. What order.
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
1) In Negative.
2) In Affirmative.
2) In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following.
REASONS
POINT NO.1 & 2:-
7. As per the case of complainant in IA-2, he was operated on 21-02-08 in the hospital of opposite No-3 by doctor opposite Nos. 1 & 2 for bilateral Vascular Necrosis of hip joint. Complainant got reviewed the result of said operation as on 02-04-08, 24-06-08 and on 18-08-08. He was advised to take medicines for such operation.
8. It is a clear allegation by the complainant in his complaint that, the said operation failed, he got tested with one Harish Kumar and in Civil Hospital, Raichur and noticed the defect in the surgery.
9. Admittedly this case was filed by the complainant on 02-09-11 as stated by him, cause of action arose to him on 20-04-11 as per the facts pleaded in the complaint. Specific allegations of him against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 is that, the operation done by them is failed. He consumed medicines as per their advise. In affidavit filed along with IA-2, he developed skin decease due to large number of medicines prescribed by opposite Nos. 1 & 2. The allegations made in complaint against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are quite contrary to the allegations made in his affidavit in Para-4. However we are mainly concerned to see as to whether, this complaint is barred by limitation or whether he has made out proper, sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay of (1) year (6) months (10) days as pleaded by him.
10. As per the admitted facts by the complainant himself, he got operated on 21-02-08. Thereafter he got reviewed by the same doctor on different dates in the same year, if complainant feels that, he was discomfort and no improvement in his health after surgery, then it is his duty to file his complaint within two years from 21-02-08. Admittedly this complaint is not filed within two years from that date. This complaint is filed on 02-09-11 by stating that, the cause of action is subsisting till the date of his complaint. However, IA-2 is filed with an assumption that, the complaint is not filed within limitation and requested to condone the delay, as per his pleadings only the complaint is filed after (3) years (7) months (19) days not as contended in the application. The reasons for filing this IA as noted in Para-4 are quite different to the allegations made in his complaint. The learned advocate for opposites mainly contended that, this complaint is filed after limitation without proper, sufficient and good grounds to condone the delay.
11. In support of this arguments they relied on the following rulings:
1) AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2210
State Bank of India V/s. V.S. Agriculture Industries (1)
2) 2010 AIR SCW 630.
Apart from the said two rulings there are other rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission which are (1) 2010 (2) CPR 371 (NC)
Delhi Development Authority V/s. Rajkumar Meena.
(2) (2006) 1 SCC 164.
Haryana Development Authority V/s. B.K.Sood.
(3) III (2000) CPJ 181.
Dr. Jayaprakash and other V/s. Aleem Construction Pvt. Ltd., and Anr.
12. From the principles of the rulings referred above. Now, it is settled law that, consumer complaint shall be entertained only if, it is within two years from the date of cause of action. It is mandatory requirement of law. If, in case complaint is not filed within two years then, complainant has got a remedy U/sec. 24(A) (2) of C.P. Act to file his complaint by showing sufficient cause for such delay.
13. Once limitation period of two years started U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act from the date of cause of action, it cannot postpone or enlarge for any reasons, unless for the sufficient cause U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act.
14. This is a case in which complainant got operated on 21-02-08, he not filed his complaint till 02-09-11 from complaint it appears that, he is contending that, the cause of action for him to file his complaint is of continuing one, as he consulted number of doctors in between the date of operation and the date of filing his complaint. The facts in his complaint regarding his consultation with various doctors and decease developed subsequently is not related to the operation conducted for on 21-02-08, there are no connecting events to say that, the cause of action arosen to him is continuous one till the date of his filing this complaint. The reasons stated in the affidavit along with IA-2 filed contrary facts which are noted in the complaint hence it is not a fit case to condone the delay as noted by us in the above said paras. Opposites are right enough in saying that, this complaint is barred by limitation U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in negative and Point No-2 in affirmative.
POINT NO.3:-
15. In view of our findings on Point No-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
IA-2 filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act is rejected.
IA-3 filed by the opposite No-3 U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act is allowed.
Consequently the complaint is dismissed against opposites, as it is time barred complaint.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 22-11-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
