1.       This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Ernakulam, and its functionary, Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 respectively in the Complaint, against the order dated 29.06.2015, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 529 of 2013.  By the impugned order, while endorsing the view taken by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Ernakulam (for short “the District Forum”) to the effect that the Petitioners herein were negligent in treating Respondent No.1/Complainant, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal.    

2.       The Appeal had been preferred by the Petitioners, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 26/28.11.2012, passed by the District Forum in Complaint Case No. 259 of 2009, preferred by Respondent No.1, alleging medical negligence on the part of the Petitioners.  By the said order, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint, had directed Respondent/Opposite Party No.3, i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd., to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹2.25 Lakhs along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the Complaint till realization and ₹1.00 Lakh as compensation for mental agony and sufferings undergone by the Complainant.  Besides, Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 was also directed to pay a sum of ₹10,000/- to the Complainant as costs of the proceedings. 

3.       The Complainant, who was working as a Machine Operator in Kerala Rubber & Reclaims Ltd., Ernakulam, for the last 35 years, was suffering from high spiking fever and pain in the joints since 2004, for which he had taken treatment from various hospitals in and around Ernakulam.  When the Complainant did not get any respite from the treatment, he contacted Opposite Party No.2, the Head of the General Medicine in the Opposite Party No.1/Hospital, where without subjecting him to clinical examinations/investigations, treatment for Anti-Tuberculous Treatment (ATT) was started on 16.05.2007.  In the opinion of Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant was suffering with Disseminated Tuberculosis with Tuberculosis Pericarditis.  Though the said treatment continued for two months, the condition of the Complainant did not improve, whereupon he was shifted to Lakeshore Hospital, Maradu, where the Complainant was diagnosed to be suffering from Drug Induced Hepatitis, Septicemia with Poly Serositis, due to ATT by Opposite Party No.2.  In the said background, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum, praying for a compensation of ₹10,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.       

4.       It is pointed out by the Office that this Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 159 days in filing the same.  An Application, praying for condonation of the said delay, has been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraphs 4 – 6 of the said Application, the Petitioners have furnished the following explanation:

“4.     It is submitted that the Revision Petitioners received the copy of the impugned order during the third week of September 2015 and thereafter the Revision Petitioners forwarded the copy of the impugned order for legal opinion to the counsel, who is based in Trivandrum, Kerala State, to ascertain the possibility of filing Revision Petition in the above matter and accordingly during the last week of December 2015, upon the receipt of legal advice from the counsel, the Revision Petitioners sent the case records to the present counsel for the Revision Petitioners at Delhi.

5.       It is submitted that since the matter is pertaining to medical negligence, the counsel for the Revision Petitioners requested the Revision Petitioners to provide the copies of documents and evidence adduced in the matter and the same was provided by the Revision Petitioners on 14.03.2016.  It is submitted that after a careful study of the case file in the matter, the counsel for the Revision Petitioners drafted the Revision Petition and sent the same to the Revision Petitioners.

6.       It is submitted that the Revision Petitioners executed the vakalatnama and signed the affidavits to be filed with the Revision Petition on 22.04.2016 and sent the same to the counsel for the petitioner at Delhi.  It is submitted that since the deposition of witnesses in the above matter are in vernacular language, the counsel for the petitioner requested the revision petitioners to provide the translated copy of the deposition of witnesses in the above matter and the revision petitioners could arrange the translated version of the deposition of witnesses only on 16.05.2016 and immediately after the receipt of the same, the Revision Petition is being filed with a delay of        days.”

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners on the question of delay.

6.       To say the least, the explanation furnished by the Petitioners is wholly unsatisfactory.  Though the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners, had been dismissed by the State Commission on 29.06.2016, yet they took about two and a half months in getting the certified copy of the impugned order issued.  The Petitioners were duly represented by their Counsel in the Appeal, who, on disposal of the same by the State Commission, must have informed them about the impugned order.  If the free certified copy of the impugned order was not received by the Petitioners within a reasonable time, without waiting for two and a half months, they or their Counsel could have approached the State Commission in this regard and obtained the same earlier.  Further, admittedly, the Petitioners received the certified copy of the impugned order sometime during the third week of September 2015, yet they took three months in having legal advice from their Counsel at Trivandrum and then furnishing the case records to their Counsel at Delhi.  While the Application is conspicuously silent with regard to date-wise developments taking place in the matter at the Petitioners’ end, inasmuch it is not clear when the Petitioners sought the legal advice in the matter; when they sent the case records to their Counsel at Delhi; and when the said Counsel requisitioned evidence etc., it is an admitted fact that in the month of December, 2015, after receipt of the legal advice in the matter, the Petitioners took further three months in furnishing the said documents to the Counsel at Delhi, who also took two months in completing the necessary formalities and filing the Revision Petition before this Commission.  Bearing in mind the limited period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 for filing the Revision Petition, at least on receipt of the certified copy of the impugned, whereby the finding of medical negligence on their part, returned by the District Forum, was affirmed by the State Commission, the Petitioners were expected to pursue the matter with utmost alacrity but that was not so.  In any case, the fact remains that there is an inordinate delay of 159 days in filing the present Revision Petition, for condonation of which the Petitioners have failed to make out a sufficient cause.      

7.       Bearing in mind the afore-stated facts and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 159 days in filing of the present Revision Petition, more so when the amount of paltry compensation awarded by the lower Fora cannot be said to be disproportionate to the afore-noted sufferings undergone by the Complainant at the hands of the Petitioners.    

8.       Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.