ORDER

30.04.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that the deceased Ejaz Ahmad died on 21.12.2021 due to heart attack at Navjeevan hospital OP4. The complainant alleged negligence and fraud upon complainant’s by OP. It is stated that on 12.12.2017 deceased Ejaz Ahmad had a heart attack and taken to Paras hospital Darbanga Bihar and treated till 15.12.2017, thereafter doctors advised that deceased Ejaz Ahmad needs a bypass surgery. It is further stated that on 17.12.2017 doctors conducted angiography teston. It is further stated that on 21.12.2017 deceased Ejaz Ahmad brought to Delhi for bypass surgery at Escort Fortis Hospital.
2. It is stated that the OP1 hospital approached the family members of the deceased and after examination by OP2, it was advised that deceased Ejaz Ahmad does not require bypass surgery. It is further stated that OP2 explained the consequences of bypass surgery and explained that there are hundreds of center of OP1 who successfully cured the heart patients without going bypass surgery and suggested a full course of treatment alongwith lifestyle. It is further stated that OP2 explained that the ECP therapy would reduced the blockage and help to restart to reopen the vessels of deceased Ejaz Ahmad which are having blockage of years and also benefit for brain blockage and other blockage vessels of the body.
3. It is stated that on 19.12.2021 deceased Ejaz Ahmad admitted at OP4 hospital at about 10 pm. It is stated that on 20.12.2021 at around 7 pm a cardiologist started the heart pumping. It is further stated that on 21.12.2021 at around 8 am when deceased was on ventilation the owner of OP4 doctor Gaurav Bansal at around 8.30 am declared that there is no hope for the life of deceased than family members requested to refer to hospitals like Max Super  Speciality but OP4 denied and finally at 12 noon deceased Ejaz Ahmad died and it was declared that the reason for  death is “cardiac arrest/heart attack”.
4. The complainant filed present complaint seeking directions against OP1 to 3 to refund medical bills of Rs.1,32,000/-, refund of medicine bills of Rs.50,000/- to pay compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for damages due to unfair trade practice, mental trauma, financial losses and deficiency in service by OP1 to 3, to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for damages from OP4, to pay Rs.42,000/- refund of medical bills by OP4, to pay ambulance charges of Rs.43,000/- by OP1 o 4 and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- litigation expenses by OP1 to 4.
5. The present complaint is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. In the application it is stated that complainants could not file the present complaint within limitation as complainant were under depression due to untimely death and had to go to home town Bihar for some personal related activities at his native village. The complainant request for condonation of delay.
6. We have heard Sh. Saddam Hussain complainant no.1 and perused the record.
7. The complainants admit that OP1 to 3 provided medical treatment to the deceased Ejaz Ahmad from 08.12.2017 to 07.05.2018 thereafter the medical bills for purchasing medicine shows that the medicines continued till 05.12.2021. the deceased Ejaz Ahmad admitted at OP4 hospital on 19.12.2021 and died on 21.12.2021. The deceased Ejaz Ahmad remained in continuous treatment from December 2017 to December 2021 and during this period complainants did not alleged any allegation or fraud or negligence against OP1 to 3. The deceased Ejaz Ahmad admitted at OP4 hospital on 19.12.2021. Admittedly, the present complaint filed beyond the limitation of two years as per section 69 of CP Act, 2019. In the application for condonation of delay the ground is taken that after the death of complainants father they were under  depression for two years, however, it is not plausible and believable that all the eight complainants suffered from depression for a period of two years. There is no document filed on record to show prima facie the degree of depression was so high which can constitute sufficient cause for not filing complaint within limitation. It is further admitted that they had gone to home town Bihar for some personal related to their father activities but there is no explanation of such personal causes or reasons to remain for two years at native village. In our considered view the complainants failed to explain the delay in filing present complaint of more than 60 days. On the basis of the reason mentioned in the application. The complainants failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay, therefore, present complaint is barred by limitation.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant filed photocopy of police complaint dated 11.02.2022 filed before police station Mangol puri alleging the same facts as mentioned in the present complaint. The complainants alleged commission of offence of fraud and cheating. The law is well settled that consumer commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the allegations of fraud. The reliance can be placed on Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Another (2000) 1 SCC 66, Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines Kolkata and Another Vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and others (2020) 9 SCC 424 and The Chairman and Managing Director, city Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs R. Chandramohan in civil appeal no.7289 of 2009 decided on 27.03.2023 (Supreme Court).
9. On the basis of above observation and discussion present complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission. File be consigned to record room.
10. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  30.04.2024.

   SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER