The complainant files hazirah.

Today is fixed for order in respect of a petition dated 14.09.18 filed by the OP No.1.

 The gist of the petition is as follows

        The Complainant filed the case against the OPs claiming compensation on allegation of medical negligence on the part of the OPs while treating the patient on 23.11.12 and 24.11.12. The OP No.1 has stated that the case is not maintainable on the ground of limitation. Moreover, the patient was treated in Sadikhardiar Rural Hospital without receiving any charge from the petitioner. So, the petition is not maintainable.

        The Complainant filed written objection stating that the OP No.1 has no right and locus standi to file the petition on the ground of maintainability and the OP treated the Complainant privately on receiving fees and the Complainant was forced to examine privately. The Complainant has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

        The Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the OPs were attached with Sadikhardiar Rural Hospital at the relevant time and the wife of the Complainant was treated at the Hospital without receiving any fees. He also submits that the case is not maintainable on the ground of limitation and the Complainant is not a consumer as he has not hired the services of the OP on payment of consideration.

         In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP No.2 treated the patient privately as it appears from the report of the Joint Director of Health Services dated 30.05.14. It is urged that the period of limitation should be construed liberally. It is further argued that the wife of the Complainant was treated by the OPs privately on payment of consideration. He submits that the petition dated 14.09.18 is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. He draws our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 3883/2007 dated 07.04.17 and a decision of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Appeal No. 283/1995 dated 18.01.18.

         Perused the written complaint, the petition dated 14.09.18, written objection and the xerox copies of documents filed by the Complainant. The Complainant has not filed the original prescriptions issued by the OPs for treatment of his wife. Admittedly, the alleged  deficiency in service took place   in the year 2012.

        The period of limitation for filing a consumer complaint is two years  from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present case, the cause of action arose in the year 2012. The Complainant has not filed any application or shown any sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within a period of two years. on going through the decisions referred by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, we find that the decisions are not at all applicable in the present case. We are of the considered view that the case is hopelessly barred by law of limitation u/s 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986..

       The second point as raised by the Op No.1 is that the OPs are attached with Government Hospital where treatment is given free of cost and no complaint is maintainable for hiring of services free of cost.

    The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that the OP No.2 treated the patient at his private chamber though no original prescription has been filed by the Complainant to establish the said fact. The decision as referred by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UttarPradesh in Appeal No. 283/1995 dated 18.01.18 is not helpful for the Complainant. The Complainant has failed to establish that he hired the services of the O.Ps for consideration.     

  Considering all aspects we have no hesitation to hold that the case is not maintainable as the case has been filed beyond the period of limitation under section 24 A  of the CP Act, 1986 and the Complainant has failed to establish that he hired the services of the O.Ps for consideration

        Hence, the petition filed by the OP No.1 is allowed on contest but without cost.

       Accordingly, the complaint case being No. CC/87/2018 be dismissed as not maintainable..

Let copy of this order be supplied to both parties free of cost.