Delhi

StateCommission

FA/13/14

ESI HOSPITAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KULDEEP SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

19 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 19.08.2015

Appeal No. 14/13

 

E.S.I. Hospital                                         

Jhilmil, Delhi.                                                               …..........Appellant

 

Versus

1. Shri Kuldeep Singh,

84/645, DDA Janta Flats,

•  

Delhi-110091.

 

2. Dr. Vikas Tandon,
3.  

Gurgaon-122001.                                             ….....Respondents

                                                                

CORAM

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 OP Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The appellant has come in instant appeal against the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in complaint No.153/12.  The Ld. District Forum awarded a sum of rupees six lacs as compensation to the complainant (now respondent in this appeal) which was to remain deposited with the nationalized bank in FDR and the complainant was allowed to get interest earned on said FDR to meet his requirements. In case of failure of the OP (now appellant herein) to comply with the order in 60 days, the complaint was entitled to interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum till it was finally paid.  The appellant was given liberty to recover the amount from the negligent doctors, after making the payment to the complainant. The appeal has been filed on 04.01.2013.  Thus, apparently the same is barred by limitation.

 

2. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that it received notice of execution in case No.588/12 on 19.09.2012. After perusal the order dated 24.05.2012 passed by District Forum, show cause notices were sent to Dr. Vikas Tandon, Dr. Prashant Shinde and Dr. Abhishek for clarification. On 15.10.2012 Dr. Vikas Tandon gave his reply to Medical Superintendent mentioning that patient was operated on 25.01.2009 by Dr. Prashant Shinde. Being unsatisfied with the reply another letter for clarification was sent to Dr. Vikas Tandon on 07.11.2012. Dr. Vikas Tandon has not filed any reply till the date of filing appeal.  The delay in filing appeal was beyond the control of appellant and for the bonafide reasons and due to circumstances mentioned above. The appellant has a prima facie case and likely to succeed on merits.

 

3. At the very outset, it may be mentioned that respondent-1 Kuldeep Singh filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant alone. Respondent-2 Dr. Vikas Tandon was not a party in District Forum. He has been joined unnecessarily as respondent-2 in present appeal.  Thus, reply filed by him cannot be seen.

 

4. Though respondent-1 has not filed any reply to the application for condonation of delay.  But reply filed by him to main appeal contains sufficient material regarding condonation of delay.

 

5. There is a delay of 173 days in filing the appeal as mentioned in the application for condonation itself. The appellant has loosely drafted the application by mentioning the present appeal as review application.

 

6. Perusal of the application for condonation of delay reveals that it speaks of show cause notices sent by appellant to Dr. Vikas Tandon, Dr. Prashant Shinde and Dr. Abhishek, reply given by Dr. Vikas Tandon, another notice given to Dr. Vikas Tandon and non-receipt of reply thereto from Dr. Vikas Tandon. That is all.

 

7. Issuing of show cause notice to Dr. Vikas Tandon is inter departmental proceedings between the hospital and doctors. The complainant has nothing to do with it.

 

8. It is not a case where the appellant was exparte before the District Forum or the appellant had no knowledge of proceedings before the District Forum. Rather the appellant filed written statement which has been considered by the District Forum.  Thus, the appellant ought to have issued show cause notices to the concerned doctors before filing written version in the District Forum.

 

9. Law regarding condonation of delay in cases before the Consumer Forum is very strict. In Revision Petition No.1848 of 2012 titled as Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal & Anr. decided on 21.05.2012, the bench of National Commission headed by Hon’ble President rejected the explanation that file was moving from table to table to get permission to file appeal. It was held that District Forum is supposed to decide the complaint within the period of 90 days from the date of filing and in case some expert evidence is required to be lead, then within 150 days. The bench dismissed the revision petition on the ground that same was delayed by 104 days.  The present appeal stands on a worst footing than the above cited case.  In the present appeal, delay is 173 days i.e. more than 104 days in the cited cases.

 

10. Moreover, in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory (2012) 8 SCC 524, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the preposition laid in earlier case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority–IV (2011) CPJ 63.  It was held that object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if the court was to entertain highly belated petitions against the orders of Consumer Foras. The court must keep in mind special period of limitation prescribed under statue. Condoning the inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by court in place of period prescribed by legislature.

 

11. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any ground for condoning the delay.  The application is dismissed.  With this, appeal automatically stands dismissed as barred by limitation. The copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as required by law.  One copy of this order be also sent to District Forum for information.

                                                                             

                                     

                                                                                                  (Salma Noor)

Member

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)