MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
ORDER
27.02.2024
1. A complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that complainant Sh. Satish Kumar filed the earlier complaint bearing CC NO. 490/2015 on 05.05.2015 and the same was dismissed in default on 04.10.2023 due to non appearance of the complainant as well as counsel. It is further stated that the non appearance of the complainant counsel was due to wrong noting of the date of hearing. It is further stated that after dismissal the present complaint case was filed through LRs due to the death of Sh. Satish Kumar on 10.09.2018.
2. On 29.04.2013, Smt. Sarla wife of deceased Sh. Satish kumar was admitted in the OP Hospital for the treatment of C.A Breast and expired on 22.05.2013. At the time of admission Smt. Sarla, shows her BPL card bearing no. BPL22060092 to the OP but after despite having the BPL card OP charged the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,51,012/- whereas as per the direction of Govt. Of NCT of Delhi as well as High Court of Delhi patient having BPL card are entitled for free treatment. It is further stated that the complainant was very poor person and has paid the medical expenses to the OP by taking debts from his relatives and after mortgaging his house. It is further alleged that on various occasions complainant approached OP for refund of money but all in vain. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the OP complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.
3. Admittedly, earlier the complaint case bearing no.490/2015 was filed with this Commission on 05.05.2015 and the same got dismissed in default for non appearance of the complainant as well as for non prosecution on 04.10.2023. Although there is no bar in filing the fresh complaint on the same cause of action, but in the present complaint the cause of action arose in the year 2015, hence, the issue of limitation needs to be decided first.
4. Let us peruse the relevant provision in respect of limitation provided under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
As per section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019: -
- The District Forum, the state commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the state commission or the National Comission , as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission , the State Commission, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.
5. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the complaint should be preferred within a period of two years of the accrual of cause of action.
6. On perusal of record before us, we found that the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 29.04.2013. The complainant ought to have file the present complaint within two years of the accrual of cause of action but the complainant failed to do so.
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose 29.04.2013, the complainant ought to have file the present complaint within two year of the accrual of cause of action. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 24.01.2024 i.e after the delay of 10 years and 2 months, the present complaint is therefore barred by limitation, hence, dismissed. File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.
Announced in open Commission on 27.02.2024.
Sanjay Kumar Nipur Chandna Rajesh
President Member Member
