1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 19.12.2022 in Appeal No. 118 of 2022 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh arising out of Order dated 23.12.2021 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 66 of 2021.

2.       The present revision has been filed by with the self-admitted delay of 130 days. However, the reported delay by office is 106 days.  

3.       Learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the petitioner has tried to explain the circumstances which caused the delay in filing the present petition and has drawn the attention of the Bench to the contents of the application seeking condonation of delay.  It was also emphasized that as the mother of the petitioner was seriously ill and eventually died also the trauma resulted in the delay.  In view of the circumstances as explained in the application the delay stands condoned.

4.       Heard the learned amicus curiae and perused the record. It appears that the complaint was filed in the District Commission after enormous delay and primarily for that reason the District Commission considered the complaint as much beyond the period of limitation and dismissed the same.  Though the English translation of the Orders have not been filed but the perusal of the original Orders indicate that it was found by the District Commission that the petitioner was treated in the hospital for the last time on 19.09.2014 and till 05.09.2019 the petitioner did not take any treatment from the respondents.  It has been found by the District Commission that no such papers at all which may indicate that the petitioner took any treatment during this interregnum are available.  It was found that  if at all there was any cause of action which may relate to the treatment given in the year 2014 the complaint had to be filed within two years thence. The complaint was filed on 06.07.2021 and was, therefore, clearly time-barred.  No adequate explanation could be proffered on behalf of petitioner which could earn him the condonation of delay.

5.       Feeling aggrieved by the Order the appeal was filed before the State Commission which again re-appraised the matter and found that in the facts of the case the complaint had to be filed within two years of the cause of action which arose in the year 2014 when the petitioner was discharged.  The State Commission concurred with the findings arrived at by the District Commission.  6.                        This Bench has tried to search for some jurisdictional error in the two Orders passed by the Fora below but finds none.  On a specific query raised by the Bench, learned amicus curiae has been fair enough to submit that there are no papers available with the petitioner relating to the medical treatment, after the year 2014 till 2019.  Learned amicus curiae has simply failed to point out any such material irregularity in the impugned Order or any such element of perversity which could persuade this Bench to take a different view of the matter. 

7.     Concurrent findings have been returned by the District Commission and the State Commission. The Orders of the two fora are a matter of record. No useful purpose will be served by reproducing them here all over again. Suffice is to say that the Bench finds that the Orders to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The Bench does not notice any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings. The Bench also does not find any reason to make fresh de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. The Bench finds no good ground for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.  The Bench has not been able to come across any streak of perversity in the findings or discern any legal principle having been overlooked or wrongly ruled. Certainly the fora below cannot be castigated either to have overstepped or transgressed their jurisdiction or to have omitted to exercise the same rightfully. The facts and circumstances appear to have been weighed and vetted well and to our satisfaction. (Refer: Order dated 08.09.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022 Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr. & Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269)

8.       The revision petition is dismissed.

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.