Complainant/appellant underwent coronary artery bypass Graft Surgery in the respondent hospital on 21.5.2005 and was discharged from the hospital on 4.6.2005. His condition continued to deteriorate. He approached Batra Hospital in December 2005 and thereafter AIIMS in January 2006 where it was revealed that he was suffering from Hepatitis C. Alleging that he contacted Hepatitis C through the transfusion of the blood at the time of surgery by the respondent hospital, complaint was filed in the year 2009. State Commission dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation by observing thus : “The limitation for filing of the complaint is 2 years from the date of arising of cause of action. His complaint is silent on cause of action, which is a serious flaw in the complaint. The cause of action in his case arose from December, 2006 as mentioned above, while he sent the notice to O.P. on 13th June, 2008 after 2 and ½ year, and filed the complaint after about seven months of giving the notice. No application for condonation of delay has been filed, and also no reason is given in the complaint to explain this delay. The complaint is, therefore, manifestly time barred, and is accordingly dismissed.” It is admitted before us that the appellant did not file any application for condonation of delay. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the complaint filed by the appellant in the year 2009 was prima facie barred by time. No application for condonation of delay had been filed. Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) – (2009) CPJ 481 has held that the provisions of Section 24A are peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. That the expression, `shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. That the consumer fora were debarred from entertaining any complaint, which was beyond the period of limitation. Para-8 of the said judgement reads as under : “It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, `shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.” We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. Dismissed. | 
