NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3741/2009

MAHABIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. T.R. MADAN - Opp.Party(s)

MR. YESHPAL SINGH

04 Mar 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 07 Oct 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3741/2009
(Against the Order dated 22/07/2009 in Appeal No. 106/2004 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. MAHABIR SINGHR/o. Villagae Passina Kalan Sub- Tehsil Bapoli Panipat Haryana ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. DR. T.R. MADANAssandh Road. Modal Town Panipat Teshil & Distt Panipat Hayana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 04 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 22.7.2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula accepting revision against the order dated 21.7.2004 of a District Forum whereby application filed by the respondent/ opposite party for dismissal of complaint as barred by limitation, was dismissed. We have heard Shri Nagar on admission. Only few dates need be referred to for deciding this revision. Expl. Leprotomy procedure was performed on the petitioner by respondent on 4.5.2000. Petitioner was discharged on 16.5.2000. Stitches were removed after 15 days. Petitioner alleged that after removal of stitches he developed pus from the site for which he was treated by the respondent and later on by other Doctors. Complaint claiming compensation was filed on 3.7.2003. For the purpose of computation of limitation period, the District Forum took the date of 19.8.2002 when the prescription was written by the respondent. In our view, cause of action to file a complaint had arisen to the petitioner on formation of pus which could not be treated by the respondent sometime in July-August, 2000. State Commission had, thus, rightly come to the conclusion that said date of 19.8.2002 can not be taken as the starting point of limitation for the purpose of filing complaint by the petitioner. Complaint filed on 3.7.2003 was obviously barred by time. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER