1. The Petitioner/Original Complainant filing this Revision Petition against the order passed in FA/1254/2009 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short State Commission) allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of District Forum. 2. The Petitioner is the wife of the deceased Ashwini Kumar who was doing tailoring business with an earning of Rs.5,000/- per month. On 22.04.2001 he was admitted in ESI Hospital, Ludhiana i.e. Respondent-1 and discharged on 10.05.2001. On the discharge the nurse handed over the discharge slip to the husband of the Petitioner. Accordingly, medicines were purchased from the pharmacy of the same hospital and some medicine from the other medical store. On consumption of said medicines for few days the patient was admitted again on 26.05.2001 to the ESI Hospital who died there on the same day. Due to the Complainant filed the Complaint 420/2005 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short District Forum) on 26.05.2005 for deficiency of service by R-1. The Complainant further say was the discharge slip issued to her husband was wrong but it was in the name of Mr. Raghuvir Singh having ESI Card No.-866110 who was suffering from Tuberculosis/ Pneumonia whereas husband of the Petitioner was diagnosed and treated for Tuberculosis with Asthma. Hence he was put on asthmatic medicines also. Hence due to taking wrong medicines her husband died which led to a great shock and mental agony to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has filed a number of complaints to different authorities like SSP, Ludhiana, DGP, Punjab, Punjab Human Rights Commission, Punjab Mahila Commission, Chandigarh, but did not get satisfactory response for which the Petitioner filed a Complaint before the District Forum claiming Rs.5,00,000/- on the account of negligence and deficiency in service by R-1. The Respondents furnished the written statement denying the averments of the Complainant. The District Forum allowed the said complaint and the Respondents were directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- as cost. 3. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum cross appeals were filed before state commission. The Opponents filed two separate Appeals F.A.No.1254/2009 by OP-1and F.A. 1160/2009 by OP No-2&3 with the prayer of setting aside the order of District Forum. Also the Petitioner filed the FA/1749/2009 for enhancement of the compensation. State Commission is going through the documents and materials placed on file and hearing the Counsels of both the sides as follows: 7.From the above statement of Respondent No. 1 herself, it is clear that the proper quantity of medicine was not given by Respondent No.1 to her husband, nor he was got examined from any doctor, nor he was admitted in any hospital, including Respondent No. 2 hospital, when her husband was feeling uneasiness or his health was deteriorating which shows that the story of the change of discharge slip has been concooted after the death of the husband of Respondent No. 1; whereas before that when he was feeling uneasiness or his condition was deteriorating, Respondent No. 1 never bothered to get him examined from a competent doctor, nor brought him to Respondent No. 2-hospital from where he was taken the treatment. A prudent man will immediately rush to the same doctor or the hospital if the medicine is not showing proper results, or is causing uneasiness or some other side effect, but that was never done. The District forum also has not given any clear-cut finding about the wrong issuance of the discharge slip, but somehow or the other by twisting the facts, awarded the compensation but the order of the District Forum is not sustainable as it is against the evidence, material and various inquiries conducted and also the statement of respondent No. 1 herself. 18 .In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by appellants is accepted and then impugned order appeal under dated 31.7.2009 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently , the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. 4. Hence, aggrieved by the order of state commission this revision petition filed. 5. We have heard the Counsel for both the parties who vehemently argued the matter. We could find here that, the husband of Petitioner who was admitted in ESI Hospital on 22.04.2001 and on date 10.05.2001 was issued discharge slip by the staff nurse. It was admitted by the Opposite Party that the patient Raghubir Singh and Ashwini Kumar were discharged on same day, both were suffering from T.B. and on the same treatment. Complainant purchased some medicines from the market and produce the bill for the same, which are in the name of Ashwini Kumar therefore, it was difficult to say that the discharge slip is of any different person. It is pertinent to note that after discharge i.e. on 10.05.2001 Ashwini Kumar was in satisfactory condition and went home. Thereafter, when his condition started deteriorating he has not consulted to any doctor or any ESI hospital/ concerned ESI dispensary but he himself reduced the dose of medicine continued for 16 days i.e. up to 26.05.2001,thereafter when her husband was feeling uneasiness or in the deteriorating health he was brought to ESI hospital and died on same day. Such attitude of Complainant itself was a negligence and clear that the story was built after the death of her husband stating that the nurse has been issued erroneous discharge slip. No doubt that if any person is so serious a common prudent man will immediately rush to the hospital or the doctor for the uneasiness caused by the medicines. We also observed the inordinate delay in filing the complaint before District Forum. The cause of action arose from the date 26/05/2001 on which death of her husband in ESI Hospital took place, whereas the Complainant filed the complaint No 420/2005 on 26.05.2005 before the District Forum ; which was after 4 years. The delay explained was on account of the complainant in pursuing her allegations before several other law enforcing agencies and by which complainant did not approach the Consumer forum. The District Forum erred in condoning the delay on the grounds which were not sufficient cause and not proper. Hence, at initial stage only the complaint was barred by limitation. The State Commission also has not considered this point. Therefore, we find this case is barred by limitation, as well do not find any merits herein. Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs.