Kerala

StateCommission

A/12/259

SATHIYAMMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEDICAL SUPERITENDENT - Opp.Party(s)

P.RAJMOHAN

22 Jan 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.259/2012

JUDGMENT DATED : 22/01/2016

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.47/2013 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta, order dated : 06.01.2012)

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          Sathiyamma,

          W/o. Sivankutty Nair,

          Satheesh Bhavan, Ulanadu,

          Kulanada, Pathanamthitta.

 

          (By Adv. Sri. P. Rajmohan)

 

                                                                                                          Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1.      Medical Superintendent,

          N.S.S. Medical Mission Hospital,

          Pandalam.

2.      Dr. K.E. Moorthy. M.S.

N.S.S. Medical Mission Hospital,

Pandalam.

3.      The Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., P.B. No. 26,

Rajeswary Complex, Perunna,

Changanassery.

 

(BY Adv: K. Muraleedharan Nair for R1 & Adv: R.S. Kalkura for R3)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellant was the complainant in OP.No.47/2003 in the CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The complainant approached the forum alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties in treating the complainant. She was suffering from vericose vein. After treatment the complainant suffered deep vein thrombosis and some disabilities. According to the complainant these consequences were due to the negligence of the opposite parties in treating the complainant. The opposite parties interalia contended that the complaint was barred by limitation. The last visit of the complainant to the first opposite party hospital was on 07.07.99 where as the complaint was filed on 24.02.2003. The consumer forum once upheld the arguments of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint. That order was challenged before this commission in Appeal No.696/2010. The appeal was allowed.   After setting aside the order of the consumer forum, this commission directed the complainant to file a petition to condone the delay in preferring the complaint and the forum to dispose of the application in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties to contest the matter.

          2.      It was accordingly the complainant filed IA.No.154/2011 to condone the delay in preferring the complaint. The complainant alleged that she was under continuous treatment after she suffered complications as a result of the treatment of the opposite parties. She was not able to file the complaint on time as she was disabled and was under continuous treatment for a long time. To the said application opposite parties 1 & 2 filed objection and the third opposite party filed separate objection. They contended that there was nothing to show that the condition of the complainant was such that she was unable to move around during the relevant time till the filing of the complaint.  Though it is alleged that she was continuing her treatment, there is nothing to indicate that she was totally incapacitated during the said period and the application is devoid of merit.

3.      The consumer forum heard both sides and considered the evidence already adduced and held that sufficient cause was not shown to condone the delay in filing the complaint.   The correctness of the order of the consumer forum is under challenged in this appeal.

          4.      The consumer forum pointed out that the evidence adduced indicates that the complainant had made occasional visits to hospital but there is nothing to indicate that she was incapacitated to approach a counsel of her choice and file complaint. The evidence of the complainant as PW1 did not improve the situation though it indicates that there was difficulty in attending to household chorus. But she admitted that after one month's treatment in the Pushpagiri Hospital she could walk as she was capable of at the time of examination as witness. No medical certificate is also produced to show that she was really incapacitated to do things such as approaching a lawyer.   Added to this the consumer forum points out that the complainant sent legal notice as early as on 10.10.2000 in connection with this case, but failed to proceed with the legal notice and file complaint till 24.02.2003. It was under the above circumstances the consumer forum found that the complainant had failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the complaint.   On appreciating the circumstances as a whole we find that it is unlikely that the complainant would succeed in establishing the alleged medical negligence.   On the facts and circumstances disclosed in the complaint, we find no material to disagree with the conclusion of the consumer forum. Hence this appeal is devoid of merit.

          Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO.259/2012

JUDGMENT DATED : 22/01/2016

 

 

Be/