DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. The instant appeal has raised objection on the order of the State Commission in IA No.1486 of 2015 wherein the delay of 770 days was condoned by the State Commission vide its order dated 29-08-2016. 2. The facts in brief are that in October, 2015 the complainant, Mr. Ebenezer filed a complaint before Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission) alleging deficiency in service and dereliction of duty on the part of M/s. Aroma Medical Centre-OP1 and Dr. Suchithra Bahuleyan, OP2 causing medical negligence and death of his wife. There was delay of 770 days in filing the complaint. 3. The complaint was filed along with the interim application, IA No.1486 of 2015 with supporting affidavit and prayed for condonation of delay of 770 days. The State Commission allowed the IA and condoned the delay for the reasons stated in the affidavit. Being aggrieved by the said order the OPs 1&2 filed this appeal. 4. We have heard the counsel for the appellants and the complainant in person. The learned counsel for the appellants initially argued on the application for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the instant first appeal. The delay of 45 days is hereby condoned for the reasons stated therein the application. Further the counsel vehemently argued that there was a huge delay of more than two years (770 days) in filing the complaint before the State Commission. The reasons given by the complainant are vague. The learned counsel for appellants-OPs submitted that the affidavit filed by the complainant was apparently false. There was no satisfactory explanation of the delay. The said complaint was barred by time as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the condonation of delay cannot be allowed and the Commission has no jurisdiction to condone the delay without proper explanation. The complainant argued the matter in person and submitted that due to untimely death of his wife at OP-1 hospital on 01-03-2012, there was no body to look after the new born baby and other children, therefore, he was not in a position to approach the State Commission to file a complaint within limitation period. He submitted that, he had served a notice dated 17-12-2013 through his advocate calling upon the appellants-OPs to settle the matter on payment of compensation. He further argued that, this is a case of medical negligence, he is illiterate and had filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, wherein the decision of Criminal court was received at late stage. The Forensic opinion and the minutes of medical expert panel were conveyed to him on 15-03-2013. 5. We have perused the entire file and gave our thoughtful consideration to the arguments of both the parties. It is an admitted fact that complainant’s wife (patient) underwent cesarean delivery at OP1 hospital, conducted by OP2 on 04-10-2011. After the operation the patient suffered sudden cardio respiratory arrest, but she could not regain consciousness. She was referred to higher centre i.e. Sanker’s Hospital for further management but she did not improve. Then she was further referred to Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram but despite all the efforts she died on 01-03-2012. The post-mortem revealed that the death was due to septicemia and the final post mortem report was available on 17-10-2012 (Annexure-A2). The matter was referred to medical board of experts who also opined the cause of death as septicemia and consequent brain hypoxia. The true copy of minutes of medical panel dated 15-03-2013 (Annexure-A3) was conveyed to the complainant. Initially the complainant accepted the findings and did not choose to file the complaint, but thereafter, in October, 2015 the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging medical negligence against OP1&2. 6. Considering the facts of the instant case, in our view, the cause of action was arosed on 15-03-2013 and the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 15-03-2015 but the complaint was filed in October, 2015, thereby the delay was about 200 days. We have perused the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit filed by the complainant. The relevant submissions in the affidavit are as under: “4. There was no body to look after the newborn baby and to the children. So I was not in a position to approach this Hon’ble Commission to file the complaint with in the limitation period. 5. To bring up the child without the mother’s help was done by me moreover the new born baby health condition was so pathetic and was recurrently taken to hospital. As there was no body to look after the affairs of my children there occurred a delay of 770 days in filing this complaint in time. 6. I submit that there is no willful latches or negligence in not instituting the complaint in time. It was so happened because of the difficulty sustained to me for bringing up my children. There was only my presence to give paternal comfort to my children as it is inevitable during that stage. My children are denied with the maternal affection and comfort due to the negligence from the part of the opposite parties.” 7. It is pertinent to note that, the panel of experts meeting has noticed that, there was a difference of opinion between Professor of Forensic Medicine and the subject experts with regard to the injury to the major vessels as an accepted complication during surgery. Therefore, the panel has recommended for referral of the matter to higher authority. Therefore, in our view, this case needs meritorious consideration and the dismissal on mere ground of delay will be against the principle of natural justice. The reasons stated by the complainant in his application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint are justified. 8. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal with the direction that the parties shall appear before the State Commission on 30-11-2017 for further proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of the order be sent to the complainant also. | 
