ORAL
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
REVISION NO. R/43/2019
(Against the order dated 25-03-2019 in Complaint Case No.
56/2016 of the District Consumer Forum, Bulandshahr )
- Dr. Reena Agarwal
W/o Dr. Rajeev Agarwal
Soham Nursing Home
Near Kurja Bus Stand, Bulandshahr
- Dr. Rajeev Agarwal
Proprietor of Soham Nursing Home
Near Kurja Bus Stand, Bulandshahr
...Revisionists
Vs.
- Praveen Kumar Lodhi
S/o Sri Prem Chandra
R/o Village Sehal, P.S. Bhadurgharh
Tehsil Gharhmukhteshwar
District Hapur
- Goldi Verma (Minor)
Through Sri Praveen Kumar Lodhi(Father)
R/o Village Sehal, P.S. Bhadurgharh
Tehsil Gharhmukhteshwar
District Hapur
- Branch Manager
The New India Assurance Company Limited
Soti Ganj, Meerut.
...Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Revisionist : Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :
Dated : 21-05-2019
ORDER
MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT
Sri Vikas Agarwal, learned Counsel for the revisionists appeared.
Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and perused order dated 25-03-2019 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No. 56/2016 Praveen Kumar Lodhi and another V/s Dr. Reena Agarwal and others.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionists that the wife of respondent/complainant No.01 was discharged from the hospital of
:2:
revisionists on 13-02-2014. Thereafter complaint has been filed on 23-04-2016 after expiry of limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The cognizance taken by the District Consumer Forum is in contravention of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.
I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the revisionists.
Vide impugned order the District Consumer Forum has rejected the plea of limitation raised by revisionists/opposite parties of complaint on the ground that the cause of action for complaint has arisen when the complainants came to know about deficiency and negligence allegedly committed by opposite parties.
I have perused complaint. In paragraph 17 of the complaint the complainants have made specific averment to the effect that during treatment in Lohiya Hospital, New Delhi team of doctors who had examined wife of complainant No.01 informed that she has suffered brain injuries due to negligence of revisionists (opposite parties of complaint) at the time of caesarean delivery.
In complaint it has been specifically stated that the wife of complainant No.01 was in Lohiya Hospital, New Delhi from 24-06-2014 to 25-02-2015.
In view of averments made in complaint the order passed by the District Consumer Forum cannot be said to be against law. The averments made in complaint may be proved or disproved by evidence of parties. Therefore, revision petition is disposed of finally with liberty to the revisionists that the point of limitation may be raised by revisionists/opposite parties in complaint at the time of final hearing after evidence of parties. If plea of limitation is raised at the time of final hearing by revisionists the District Consumer Forum shall consider it and shall pass order in accordance with law on merits.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
