The dispute relates to 2008, we are in 2018. 1. Heard learned counsels for the revisionists and the respondent, and perused the material on record. 2. The respondent – complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum against the revisionists – opposite parties alleging deficiency in service. The District Forum had heard both sides, appraised the case, and through its Order dated 05.03.2012 partly allowed the complaint: 22. In view of the above findings we hold that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 60,000/- to compensate the expenditure incurred on medicines and pathological tests, Radiation and Chemo Therapy Apart from this opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused by wrong representation that their hospital is recognized for CM Relief Fund in respect of cancer patients and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs. 23. In the result the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to compensate the expenditure incurred on medicines, pathological tests, Radiation and Chemo therapy, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 3. The State Commission had heard both sides, appraised the case, and through its Order dated 22.03.2017 dismissed the appeal: 17) It was the specific case of the Respondent that the appellants have wrongly informed him that their hospital is covered under Chief Minister’s Relief Fund scheme and for that reasons, he joined his father in the hospital of the Appellants. Having issued the certificate under Ex. A3, the Appellants cannot make a turn round and contend that they are no way concerned with the same. At the first instance itself, the appellants could have discarded to admit the patient and ought not to have issued the Ex. A3 certificate, which gave hopes to the Respondent that he could avail the benefit under CMRF scheme. As such, we do not find any illegality or infirmities in the well-considered orders of the forum below in the above regard. Accordingly, we answer the point framed for consideration at paragraph No. 14 against the appellants and in favour of the Respondent. 18) In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. Time for compliance : four weeks. 4. This revision has been filed against the said Order dated 22.03.2017 of the State Commission, admittedly with delay of 286 days, and also admittedly after execution proceedings were filed by the respondent – complainant. 5. The stated reasons for delay in filing the revision, as recorded in paras 4 and 5 of the application for condonation of delay, are as below: 4. That the Ld. State Commission vide the judgment dated 22.03.2017 dismissed the First Appeal filed by the petitioners herein. It is respectfully submitted that after the matter was heard and judgment was reserved, the Petitioners were not aware of the fact that the judgment was passed on 22.03.2017 and that the First Appeal was dismissed. That the Petitioner
No. 1 is a medical Institute based in Karimnagar District, Telangana and the Petitioner No. 2 is a Doctor working in the Petitioner No.1 Institute. That Karimnagar Town is at a distance of 200 kms. and the Petitioners were not made aware of the judgment of the Ld. State Commission until execution proceedings were filed by the Respondent herein in the year 2018. Thereafter, the Petitioners had immediately initiated steps to challenge the judgment of the Ld. State Commission by filing the present Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission. 5. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the present Revision Petition is neither deliberate nor intentional. The Petitioners have a good case on merits and would suffer great harm if the delay is not condoned. It is therefore prayed that in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the present Revision Petition may kindly be condoned. 6. It is noted that the stated reasons for delay like “ - - - the Petitioners were not aware of the fact that the judgement was passed on 22.03.2017 and that the First Appeal was dismissed.- - -” and “ - - - That the Petitioner No. 1 is a medical Institute based in Karimnagar District, Telangana and the Petitioner No. 2 is a Doctor working in the Petitioner No. 1 Institute.- - -” and “- - - That Karimnagar Town is at a distance of 200 kms. and the Petitioners were not made aware of the judgment of the Ld. State Commission until execution proceedings were filed by the Respondent herein in the year 2018.- - -” and “ - - - Thereafter, the Petitioners had immediately initiated steps to challenge the judgment of the Ld. State Commission by filing the present Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission. - - -” are illogical and unacceptable in explaining convincingly and cogently the day- to-day delay in filing the appeal. 7. No just or sufficient cause within the meaning of section 24A of the Act 1986 is visible to explain the delay. 8. This bench however wants to also satisfy itself that there would be no miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. It is noted that the revision has been filed against concurrent findings of the two fora below, the State Commission, after (again) hearing both sides, and after (again) appraising the case, had concurred with the District Forum. It is also noted that the revision has been filed with delay (only) after the execution proceedings have been initiated. It is further noted that this is not a case of alleged medical negligence (hence, there is no stigma of medical negligence on the hospital or the doctor concerned). Without attempting to examine or adjudicate on the impugned Order of the State Commission on merit, this bench does not find any reason visible to convince it that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. 9. The application for condonation of delay being unconvincing and devoid of merit is dismissed. Resultantly the revision is dismissed on limitation. It is but also made explicit that there is no stigma of medical negligence on the hospital or the doctor concerned. 10. Needless to add that the District Forum shall proceed with execution as per the law. 11. A copy of this Order be sent to the District Forum by the Registry within ten days. | 
