Delhi

North East

CC/157/2023

OMPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIRA GANDHI EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE HOSPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

AVIK CHATTERJEE

26 Jun 2023

ORDER

hDISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 157/2023

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Ompal Singh, S/o Late Amar Singh, R/o 1/3840, Bhagwananpur Khera Loni Road, Shahdara New Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.         3.	Indira Gandhi Employees State Insurance Hospital Near Vivek Vihar Police Station, Jhilmil Delhi 110095   Yatharth Wellness Super Speciality Hospital Omega 1, Plot No. 32, MG Road Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201309   Employees State Insurance Corporation (Through its Commissioner) First Floor, Wazirpur Industrial Area Delhi 110052	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

07.06.2023 16.06.2023 26.06.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

 Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The case of the Complainant is that his son late Sunil Kumar (deceased) was working as Lift Supervisor with M/s BVG India Ltd., New Delhi and was insured under the Employees State Insurance Scheme. The complainant, being the father of the deceased, has alleged that due to negligent approach of Opposite Party-1 i.e. Indira Gandhi Employee State Insurance Hospital, his son had died. It is submitted that his son was admitted in Opposite Party-1 hospital on 01.09.2016 with fever and was treated there. It has been alleged that there was no sign of recovery and on urgent basis, his son was referred to Opposite Party-2 i.e. Yatharth hospital. It is alleged that the condition of his deceased son was deteriorated due to the negligence and carelessness of Opposite Party 1 and the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that he lost his son due to negligence of Opposite party 1 and sought punitive compensation of Rs. 35,00,000/- and Rs. 500,000/- for mental harassment and other costs and expenses.
2. The complainant has also moved an application for condonation of delay of 1009 days in filing the present complaint.
3. We have heard the counsel for the Complainant and perused the file. The grievance of the Complainant is that his son died due to the negligence of Opposite Party 1, hence, entitled to be compensated.
4. The perusal of the application for condonation of delay shows that there is admittedly delay of 1009 days in filing the present complaint. The paragraph 5 of said application provides the reasons for delay as follows;

“In order to get service benefits of his deceased son, the complainant filed a civil suit in Rohini District courts bearing Civil Suit No. 1150 of 2017 but his daughter in law filed a counter case in Tis Hazari district court bearing case no. Succession Case No. 123 of 2017 but due to paucity of funds he could not manage two cases at one time, the case instituted in Rohini District Court was adjourned sine die and he case in Tis Hazari district court decided on 20.03.2023 whereby the matter was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court.”

 

5. In this context, we are guided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported at IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that:

           "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras."

6. The above Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory reported at IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-

         "4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).

7. The complainant has cited paucity of funds as the reason for delay which in our view, is not sufficient enough to justify huge delay of 1009 days. Hence, we are of the view that the Complainant is not entitled for any Condonation of Delay.
8. Further, it is observed that the complainant being father of the deceased, is class II heir, hence, has no locus to file the present complaint when, admittedly, class 1 heirs i.e. mother and wife of the deceased are alive.
9. It is also relevant to mention here that perusal of the application for condoning delay show that there has been some dispute amongst the family members of the deceased Sunil kumar as two counter suits were admittedly filed by the complainant (Father of the deceased)and his daughter in law (wife of deceased).
10. It is also relevant to note that the perusal of the material of record shows that the complainant has not been able to show prima facie the negligence alleged as no substantial document has been filed in that regards.
11. Thus, in view of above , we are of the considered view that the Complainant is not entitled for any Condonation of Delay. Accordingly, the application for Condonation of Delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Complaint shall also stand dismissed.
12. Order announced on 26.06.2023.

                      Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President