BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the day of 18th day of October 2022
PRESENT:
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., Member
C.C. No. 385/2019
Complainant
Vineetha Shyamkumar, W/o.Shyamkumar, Idapurayidathu Chalil (H), Kalampoor, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam-Pin-686 664
(By Adv.N.Krishna Prasad, Anantha Bhavan, Amman Kovil Road, Ernakulam)
Vs.
Opposite party
1) M/s.Nirmala Medical Centre, Rep. by its General Manager, Ashramam Road, Kizhakkekara, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam-686 661
2) Dr.Sreekala Sarma, Surgeon, Nirmala Medical Centre, Ashramam Road, Kizhakkekara, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam-686 661
3) M/s.Rajagiri Hospital, Rep. by its General Manager, Near GTN Junction, Chunamgamvely, Aluva, Kochi-683 112
(O.p 1,2 & 3 rep. by Adv.George Cherian Karippaparambil, H.B.48, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-36)
O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
The complainant in this case submits that he had handed over the documents related to the consumer complaint to his counsel during November 2015. Further the complainant submits that due to the hospitalization of the father of the counsel of the complainant owing to various ailments and hence the complaint could not be filed within the stipulated time period. Hence the matter has been delayed. In fact, it is stated by the complainant that the papers related to the complaint was misplaced in the shifting process of the office of counsel of the complainant and most of the papers were not available and hence the delay of 725 days had occurred for filing this consumer complaint. The complainant prays to condone the delay of 725 days and hence filed the instant I.A for accepting the petition.
Notice was issued to the opposite party and both sides were heard on 19.07.2022. The opposite party’s Counsel filed objection in the I.A and produced judgments and decisions of the Apex court which is read as follows:
1) IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs.New Okhla Industrial Development Auth has refused to condone the delay of 233 days holding that object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against order of Consumer Foras – delay of 233 not condoned.
2) IV (210) CPJ 7 (SC) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of D.D.A Vs. Krishanlal Nandrayog has refused to condone the delay of 199 days holding that no sufficient cause shown for condoning delay and no satisfactory explanation given by the appellant.
3) I (2016) CPJ 1 (SC) The larger bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.Hilly Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd has held in paragraph 17 of its judgment “We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment delivered in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant (supra) holds the filed and therefore, we reiterate the view that the District Forum can grant a further period of 15 days to the opposite party for filing his version or reply and not beyond that”.
In this case, the delay occurred for filing the petition is 725 days and the statutory period fixed for filing the consumer complaint is 2 years from the date of cause of action. In the instant case, the cause of action took place on 12.09.2015 and the consumer complaint is supposed to be filed on or before 11.09.2017. The delay occurred is more than the statutory period fixed for filing the complaint and the apex courts on various occasions as is stated above has enlightened the facts. Inordinate delay occurred in filing this consumer complaint and this complaint is filed beyond the statutory period. Hence the interlocutory application filed by the complainant is dismissed.
In the result the consumer complaint filed fit only for dismissed and hence dismissal and hence dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this 18th day of October 2022.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
C.C. No. 385/2019
Order dated 18.10.202
