Delhi

New Delhi

CC/23/2022

Nihar Ranjan Raha - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The General Manager Northern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

14 Feb 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION­­­-VI, DISTT.NEW DELHI, M-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

CC No.23/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

NIHAR RANJAN RAHA

R/O DELHI RAJDHANI APARTMENT,

FLAT NO.G-03, GROUND FLOOR,

INDRAPRASTHA EXTENTION,

PLOT NO.80, PATPARGANJ,

DELHI-110092                                            … COMPLAINANTS

      

VERSUS

 

1.THE GENERAL MANAGER,

NORTHERN RAILWAY,

HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE,

BARODA HOUSE,

COPERNICUS MARG,

NEW DELHI-110001

 

2.PRINCIPAL CHIEF MEDICAL DIRECTOR,

NORTHERN RAILWAY,

HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE,

BARODA HOUSE,

COPERNICUS MARG,

NEW DELHI-110001                                        … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

 

CORAM : SH. POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

      MS. ADARSH NAIN, MEMBER   

                                                      Date of Institution: 23.01.2017

                                                                  Date of Order   : 14.02.2022

ORDER

Hearing Through Video Conferencing.

Present: Complainant in person.

Heard arguments on admission.

1. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had retired as a senior section engineer from OP. He visited for his eye checkup at Northern Railway Central Hospital from 11.09.2001 to 15.09.2001 vide OPD registration slip No.0/01/044118, with medical id card No.NR-013070 dated 11.09.2001. The concerned doctors diagnosed cataract in right eye and advised for contract operation, they further apprised that contract operation facility was unavailable at NRCH/NDLS, wish to refer to AIMS Hospital, due to long waiting list of patients in AIMS hospital, on the request of the complainant he was referred to  MMR, Eye Institute, Delhi for contract operation, NRCH/NDLS hospital verbally permitted the complainant to undergo cataract operation. On 17.10.2001 cataract operation was performed at MMR eye institute. It is further stated that after 15 months from the said operation, the complainant had some problem in the eyes on 20.01.2003, after test of suspected Glaucoma in the eye, he was visited at GNEC/NDLS on 24.02.2003. The complainant had submitted medical reimbursement claim form on 29.10.2003 of Rs.5930.20 (Rupees Five Thousand Thirty Rupees approx.) along with all the required documents to Medical Branch NRCH/NDLS as per prescribed norms, but the claim was rejected intentionally vide office letter No.99-Med.Re-imbursement dated 24.08.2004 on the ground “You were referred to GNSEC New Delhi for Glaucoma field cataracting but you went to MMR Eye Institute of your own, Hence, your case is rejected”. The complainant further stated that after first rejection, he appealed for reconsideration to the Chief Medical Director on dated 22.09.2004 but the OP neither reconsidered the application nor refunded the claim amount and rejected on 04/09.11.2004, third rejection on 14.02.2005, fourth rejection on 29.03.2005 and fifth rejection of claim on 28.09.2005, respectively, on the ground attended non-railway non-recognized private hospital without referral`. The complainant further stated that this claim was of the year 2001 during which already policy was there in Indian Railway Medical Manual 2000. The complainant further stated that the rejection of the claim was unjustified, unreasonable. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed this complaint against the OP`s praying for payment of claim of Rs.5930.20/- with interest as medical re-imbursement  and compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- .
2. We have perused the material on record carefully. Since the question relating to Limitation goes to the root of the matter and may render the order illegal, we would have to first see whether the complaint was filed within the requisite time period i.e. within two years of accrual of accrual of action.
3. Section 69 of the Act,2019 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complainant by the consumer before District commission, State Commission and National Commission is as follows:

"69. Limitation period - The District Commission, 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.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, 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 or the District Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."

From the aforesaid provision, it flows that the provision is peremptory in nature, requiring the Consumer Commission to examine, before it admits the Complaint, that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Commission, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint, if sufficient cause is shown.

4. The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 69 is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Commission to examine on its own whether the Complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer commission must deal with the complaint on merits only if it 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 Commission to take notice of Section 69 and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Commission decides the complaint on merits, the Commission would be committing an illegality.
5. Perusal of record shows that complainant submitted the medical re-imbursement claim on 29.10.2003 the Opposite Party vide letter dated 24.08.2004 rejected the claim of the complainant.
6. According to the Complaint, the cause of action arose when the Opposite Party rejected the claim of the complainant on i.e. 24.08.2004 of the operation for cataract operated on 17.10.2001. As per the Complainant, he made several correspondences with the Opposite Party for reconsideration of the claim, however, the Opposite Party rejected the claim seven times. Thereafter, the Complainant filed Complaint before this Commission on 02.02.2022, i.e. seventy years after the rejection of the claim.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors., reported at (2014) 6 SCC 460 has held the following:- "10. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided. ........"
8. The Hon'ble National Commission in Mahesh Nensi Shah Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported at III (2006) CPJ 414 NC, has observed that no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.
9.  In the present case also, the complaint has been filed after almost 17 years from the date, when the 'Cause of Action' arose. Even though the Complainant had made several representations to the Opposite Party when the application for reconsideration was formally rejected by the Opposite Party, the same cannot be considered as the date of accrual of fresh cause of action. Hence, it is clear that the complaint case is beyond the limitation period prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
10.  However, the Complainant in order to get the delay condoned, has not moved an Application for Condonation of Delay. Special limitation periods have been prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 and the Regulations, 2005 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes.
11. Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. New Delhi in Gian Gupta vs Delhi Development Authority on 16 August, 2021 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/101160540/ 4 18. in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority reported at IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that: "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras."  Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory reported at IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:- " This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).
12. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this commission in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay. Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain this case. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay". The above authoritative judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are equally applicable in the present case, which are reflective that the Commission has to look into the fact whether the Complainant has been able to show his/her diligence, the reasons for the delay in filing the Complaint and also the special period of limitation provided in the Consumer Protection Act.
13.  Thus, in the  present case, as the Complainant had taken no legal action since August, 2004, till the date of filing the present Complaint, and has failed to give any cause which would explain the huge delay of almost 17 years, in filing of the Complaint.
14.  Thus, we are of the considered view that the Complainant has not acted with reasonable diligence in prosecution of his case which has resulted in filing the complaint beyond the period of two years as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is clear that the negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides are imputable to the Complainant, therefore, the Complainant is not entitled for any Condonation of Delay. Accordingly, the Complaint  stand dismissed.
15.  A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.

Announced on this 14^nd day  of February, 2022.

 

 

MS.POONAM CHAUDHRY

(PRESIDENT)

BARIQ AHMAD                                                                                                                     MS. ADARSH NAIN          

    (MEMBER)                                                                                                                                      (MEMBER)