Today was fixed for affording consideration to the amended application dated 12.10.2016 filed by the learned counsel for the complainant as statutorily requisite U/s 24-A of the C P Act, 1986 for condonation of delay of a period of 157 days incurred in filing the present consumer complaint. For the purpose, we have intently heard the learned counsels for both the sides on points of ‘fact’ as well as on points of ‘law’ and have further examined all the on-record documents for its statutory merit as, contained therein.

2. We find that the learned counsel for the complainant has pleaded that ‘cause of action’ need be deemed to have arisen to his client only on 18.11.2014, the date on which he was delivered the ‘Medical Treatment Record’ of his since demised daughter by the tilted opposite parties and not from 22.07.2013 the date of demise of his daughter and in this way the complaint stood filed within ‘limitation’ on 21.12.2015. On the question of ‘delay’ in procurement of the ‘medical treatment record’ itself, the complainant has stated of his own ailments aggravated at the sad demise of his young 23 years old daughter necessitating his own ‘angiography’ twice with MRI of Spine etc and delay caused at opposite party’s end to deliver the demanded treatment record. However, the complainant could not produce any cogent evidence detailing the dates and means of his alleged demands to the OP Hospital for delivery of medical records etc. We further find that the complainant has not been able to explain his ‘pre-occupations’ during the intervening period of 01 year and 03 months between Date Of Death 22.07.2013 and date of receipt of records 18.11.2014 that prevented him from filing the consumer complaint whereas he has failed to provide evidence that he did not attend to his professional work during the period and/or his own ailment tests etc angiography/MRI kept him down during all this time. Further, if it has been after 18.11.2014 that the complainant could learn of the medical ‘misconduct’ on the part of the titled opposite parties, he had preferred other available remedies to the present consumer complaint remedy and himself let it go ‘barred’ by law of limitation. The complainant has duly stated in his present application having complained to the police authority, medical authority, civic authority for enquiry and re-enquiry etc and finally filed the instant complaint on 21.12.2015 with a delay of 157 days; having coming to know of this remedy only on 17.12.2015 and that too through one of his friends M P Singh, by name. Somehow, we find it hard to take that a seasoned chartered accountant by profession shall not be aware of the consumer rights and medical negligence etc that have been so common in news, all these years. Lastly, we find that the Hon'ble SC Judgement in IV (2010) CPJ 27 (SC) as cited by the complainant does not help him either since going by the citation the cause of action shall deem to have been arisen on the date of knowledge of loss and that coincides here with date of death i.e., 22.07.2013 and not 18.11.2014 the date of receipt of treatment records etc.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party service providers has duly contested the present application by out-rightly stating the cause of action, if any, shall deemed to have been incurred as on the date of death i.e., 22.07.2013 thus barring the present complaint by limitation clause with a clear delay of 157 days. Further, the complainant could not prove that he has been incapacitated till 18.11.2014 till the receipt of treatment records etc whereas he has been actively pursuing his professional work along with the complaint pertaining to his daughter’s death with different authorities and the alibis as made by him presently in order to condone delay incurred in filing the instant complaint are totally bereft of any merit and need be disallowed/rejected with costs. In order to support his contention/rebuttal the learned counsel for the opposite parties has purposefully cited the ‘3’ superior court judgements that fully support the raised contentions and we also respectfully concur with the legal propositions as raised therein: i) IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) titled Anshul Aggarwal vs New Okhla Dev. Authority; ii) Hon'ble NCDRC RP # 141 of 2015 titled Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board vs Gurpreet Singh and Others and iii) Hon'ble NCDRC First Appeal 561 of 2015 titled Diakem India Private Ltd. Vs New India Assurance Co..

4. We are also of the considered opinion that the provisions of applicable statute must not be deviated unless there follows a substantial logic for the same that we somehow find amiss, here. In the light of the all above, we do not see any defined statutory merit in the instant application for condonation of delay and thus ORDER for its dismissal and with that the present main consumer complaint also stands dismissed. The litigating parties shall however bear their own expenses, here.

5. The litigants here shall be intimated accordingly free of cost as per the statute.

6. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

(Naveen Puri)

                                                                                  President.

ANNOUNCED:                                               (Jagdeep Kaur)

JANUARY 09, 2017                                                    Member.

*YP*