1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 17.04.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.149 of 2017 in which order dated 27.09.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Saini Enclave, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 942 of 2014 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 17.04.2018 of the State Commission. 

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent in the said FA No. 149 of 2017 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner  was Complainant and Respondent was OP before the District  Forum in the CC no. 942 of 2014. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 16.07.2019.  Respondent filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 01.07.2022.

3.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant underwent cataract operation of left eye from the OP Hospital on 18.07.2013.  After the operation, he did not get relief in his eye.  He was referred to Retinal Specialist as he had visual problem ( macular degeneration ) in the inner part of the eye. Complainant took advice from other hospitals but he did  not get satisfactory response due to his retinal degeneration.  Being aggrieved of the loss of vision in the left eye, the Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum.

4.       Vide Order dated 27.09.2016 in the CC no. 942 of 2014, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint of the Complainant. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 27.09.2016 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission.  The Appeal was, however, filed with delay 142 days.  The State Commission vide order dated 17.04.2018 in FA No. 149 of 2017 dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the Complainant as also dismissed the Appeal  being barred by limitation. 

5.       Petitioner has challenged the said order of State Commission  dated 17.04.2018 mainly on following grounds:

(i)      Doctor of the respondent, namely Dr. Sameer Sud advised the Complainant that said disease will be cured after getting the operation under the supervision of the hospital/respondent and on  believing the same, Complainant admitted in the hospital.

(ii)     After the operation respondent told the Complainant that vision of his eye will be fine very soon.

(iii)    Petitioner contacted the hospital doctor namely Dr.Sameer Sud and Dr. Siddharth Sain and other doctors and told them about his eye problem but they were not ready to cure the same.

(iv)    Negligence and deficiency has  been committed on the part of the respondent in operating the eye of the Complainant.

(v)     The Respondent did  not comply with the requirement of the legal notice served by him. 

6.       Heard both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.1     Petitioner who appeared in person argued that Respondent has committed negligence and deficiency in service in operating the eye of the Petitioner.  He further argued that on the assurance of the doctor of the Respondent that his disease will be cured, he got himself operated but no fruitful result came out in the vision of eye of the Petitioner.  Counsel argued that Respondent failed to provide best services to the Complainant.

6.2.    Counsel for the Respondent argued that none of the medical prescription / document filed by the Petitioner substantiates the fact that his condition was so severe that he was prevented from filing the Appal before the State Commission.   Even there is huge gap in every medical prescription filed by the Petitioner.  The Petitioner in condonation of delay application has taken a simple bald assertion that Petitioner was suffering from serious ailment which cannot  be accepted from the face value of the medical documents filed by the Petitioner.  Counsel further argued that Petitioner failed to disclose the sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission and there is gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafide on part of Petitioner in not filing the medical documents before the State Commission.

6.3.    The thrust of the pleadings of the Respondent is that the Complainant, ( Petitioner herein ), had a pre-existing disease of macular degeneration in the left eye, which causes low vision.  During the hearing, they referred to various prescriptions of the Respondent Centre starting with the first one dated 06.03.2010 till 16.07.2013. The surgery in this case was performed on 18.07.2013. A perusal of the prescriptions dated 06.03.2010, 24.03.2010, 28.06.2013, 02.07.2013 09.07.2013 i.e. for a period of more than three years, would show that in none of the prescriptions it is mentioned that the Complainant had a disease / problem relating to macular degeneration.  It is for the first time in the prescription dated 16.07.2013 that it is mentioned macula atrophy, with doctor’s comment as follows:

                  “HAZY DETAILS MACULAR ATROPHY – MARGINAL”

Subsequently, in the prescription dated 25.07.2013 again macula atrophy is seen mentioned.  Again in the prescription dated 21.08.2014, it is mentioned L/E ( Left Eye ) macula degeneration.  In the prescription dated 18.11.2014 under the left eye, it is mentioned macular scarring.

7.       In this case, the petitioner, who is an old person aged about 74 years has been appearing in person, and is not in good state of health.  In this case, the Appeal was dismissed by the State Commission on account of delay. Although in the RP, the order dated 17.04.2018 of the State Commission has been challenged seeking its setting aside, but in the prayer, the Petitioner has sought setting aside of order dated 27.09.2016 of the District Forum along with any and further orders which this Commission may deem fit and proper.    Vide order dated 10.01.2023, it was decided to take up the matter on merits.  On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the case deserves to be considered on merits.  Hence, the order dated 17.04.2018 of the State Commission dismissing the application for Condonation of delay is set aside.  RP is allowed.  The case is remanded back to the State Commission for fresh disposal on merits keeping in view the observation in this order. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 06.10.2023. The State Commission may take a final decision in the case within a maximum of three months. 

8.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.