Delhi

StateCommission

A/149/2017

SUBHASH BHATIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SHARP SIGHT LASER CENTRE PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SELF

09 Apr 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

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

                                                                    Date of Arguments:   09.04.2018

                                                                     Date of Decision:      17.04.2018

First Appeal No. 149/2017

In the matter of:

Mr. Subhash Bhatia,

R/o 194/5-D, Bhola Nath Nagar

Shahdara,

Delhi-110032.                                                                                                 …….Appellant

 

                                                            Versus

 

M/s Sharp Sight Laser  Centre Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Directors

81, Defence Enclave

Vikas Marg

Delhi-110092.                                                                                                 ….Respondent

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL)

 

                                                                                JUDGEMENT

 

            This order will dispose of application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Order in challenge is dated 27.09.16 passed by District Forum in CC No. 942/14 vide which complaint was dismissed.  The complainant underwent cataract operation from OP Hospital.  He did not get relief in his eyes. He was referred to Retinal Specialist as he had macular degeneration in retina. Complainant took advice from other hospital, there also he did not get satisfactory response due to his retinal degeneration.                                                                                                                                                                                

2.         Defence of the OP was that complainant did not come for subsequent follow up after 2010. 

3.         Appeal has been filed on 21.03.17.  Application for condonation of delay moved by the appellant states that he was suffering from asthama disease for last several years and remained under treatment.  According to application medical document was annexed with the application but no such document is there on record.

4.         Respondent has filed a detailed reply taking preliminary objections that the delay of 142 days cannot be condoned under the given circumstances as no sufficient and cogent reason has been given by the appellant to condone the delay. The respondent specifically mentioned that no medical document has been filed by the appellant as mentioned by him in the application.

5.         The appellant filed the rejoinder to application for condonation of delay which was not required.  It is strange that appellant chose to file rejoinder but till now he did not file medical record in support of his application.

6.         In the above circumstances, the appellant cannot be believed to say that he was suffering from asthama or that is why he could not file the appeal in limitation.  Mere bald plea of the party without supporting document is not enough.

7.         The application is dismissed.  With this the appeal also stands dismissed as being barred by limitation.

            Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

            One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                       (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                                 MEMBER(JUDICIAL)