DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 298 of 29.7.2016
Decided on: 24.8.2016
Bant Singh son of Sh. Teja Singh, resident of Village Mehlan, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Patiala Eye Hospital, Behind New Gopal Sweets, Leela Bhawan, Patiala, through Dr.S.S.Boparai.
2. Dr.S.S.Boparai, Owner of Patiala Eye Hospital, Behind New Gopal Sweets, Leela Bhawa, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Arun Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the
complainant.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Bant Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of causing deleterious effect on health, mental agony and harassment.
- To pay litigation expenses alongwith other relief which this Forum may deed fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was suffering from cataract and visited the O.Ps. on 12.7.2009. The O.Ps. after examining his right eye , conducted the operation on 21.7.2009 of his right eye. He was discharged from the hospital on the same day. The O.Ps. told him that the operation was successful and he would be able to see everything but on the contrary he was unable to see anything. He, time and again approached the O.Ps. to get his problem cured but the O.Ps. every time put off the matter on one pretext or the other saying that the problem would be cured very soon. After getting his eye checked from the other doctor, it came to his notice that the O.Ps. have not conducted any operation and have rather damaged the right eye by piercing some needle due to which he lost the vision of his right eye. He also approached the Hon’ble Defence Minister, Govt. of India, New Delhi on 2.12.2009 for the redressal of his grievance but no action was taken by it. He also moved an application dated 10.10.2010 and complaint dated 15.7.2011 before the Hon’ble Defence Minister, New Delhi but to no effect. The disability of his right eye was assessed by the Medical Board of Doctors of the office of Civil Surgeon, Sangrur and disability certificate No. Med/10/103 dated 10.2.2010 was issued to him regarding the disability of his right eye to the extent of 60%. He also reported the matter to the higher authorities of Indian Army but no action was action against the O.Ps. There is mal – practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Due to said act of the O.Ps. he suffered mental agony and physical harassment. Therefore, he is liable to be compensated. Hence this complaint.
3. As per complainant, there was cataract in his right eye and on 12.7.2009, he went to O.ps for removal of the same, who conducted operation on 21.7.2009. The said O.Ps. conducted the operation negligently, as a result whereof, he lost vision in his right eye. In support of his version, he attached with the complaint certain documents i.e. copies of prescriptions. From the said documents, it is evident that the O.Ps. have conducted the operation of his right eye, in the year 2009, which shows that cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year 2009 when operation failed. As per section 24 A, which reads as under:
“24-A.Limitation period.-(1) The District Forum, 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.”
4. As per the said section, the complainant could have filed the complaint within two years from the occurrence of incident. However, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 29.7.2016 for redressal of his grievance i.e. after a delay of about seven years from the accrual of cause of action. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed in limine.
5. In the case titled as State Bank of India Vs. B. S. Agricultural Industries (I) 2009 (2) CLT 541 SC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “Provisions of Section 24A is pre-emptory in nature and requires Consumer Forums to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of action”
6. In view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by time and is hereby dismissed for want of limitation.Certified copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
Dated: 24.8.2016
NEELAM GUPTA NEENA SANDHU
Member President
