NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/422/2009

DR. SHAIBYA SALDANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NANJMA SULTANA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MS. MADHUSMITA BORA

04 Nov 2009

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIFIRST APPEAL NO. 422 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 27/01/2006 in Complaint No. 132/2001 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. DR. SHAIBYA SALDANAAssistant Professior, OBG St. Johns Medical College HospitalBangalore - 560 034 ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. NANJMA SULTANA & ANR.W/o Mr. Abid Mohd. Iqbal, Old No. 19/1, New No. 6, Serpentine Street, Richmond TownBangalore - 560 0252. ST. JOHNS MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITALRep. by Fr. M.A. Sebastian, Associate Director, St. John's Medical College Hospital, John Nagar, Sarjapur RoadBangalore - 560 034 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 04 Nov 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          Aggrieved by the order dated 27.1.2006 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint Case no.132 of 2001, the opposite party no.2 before the State Commission has filed the present appeal. The complaint before the State Commission is related to medical negligence/deficiency in service in giving treatment to the complainant. The State Commission has partly allowed the complaint by directing the appellant and the hospital to pay compensation of Rs.Two Lacs with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation besides cost of Rs.2,000/-.

          The appeal has been filed after an undue delay of 1315 days and an application for condonation of delay has been filed along with the appeal. The only reason for the said delay given in the application vaguely averred as pre-occupation of the appellant with her professional commitments due to which she could not find time to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

In our view this cannot be considered to be sufficient reason for condoning the undue delay of about four years in filing the appeal. It would appear to us that the appellant had full knowledge of the passing of the impugned order as well as filing of the first appeal no. 135 of 2006 filed by the St. John Medical College Hospital as far as back in the year 2006 itself. If she was really aggrieved with the impugned order and findings of the State Commission, she could not have waited for so long to challenge the same in this Commission.

 

In the circumstances, we are  not  inclined to condone the delay and dismiss the appeal on this score alone.



......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER
......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER