BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 04/01/2014

Date of Order : 03/03/2015

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 8/2014

Between

And

O R D E R

Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :-

The complaint was filed by one Mr. Manoj, S/o. M.N. Gangadhara Panicker, against the opposite parties Dr. V. Ramananda Pai, Consultant Pediatric Surgeon, and the Hospital M/s. Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission Hospital, claiming compensation of Rs. 17,00,000/- alleging medical negligence of the 2^nd opposite party in performing a surgery, which was caused gangrenous ulcer over the left forearm. The complainant Had produced 4 documents in support of his car.

2. The opposite parties appeared and filed their version. It was alleged that the complaint filed in the year 2014 in respect of the alleged defect in source and negligence in the year 2004 is not maintainable before this Forum as the subject matter of the complaint is time barred. We have carefully gone through the documents produced and heard both sides. Document No. 1 produced by the complainant is a photocopy of a certificate issued by Dr. Lalithambika. M.D., D.G.O., Associate Professor, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha certifying that the mother of the child Smt. Snehalatha has undergone US scan and the baby was found to have intestinal obstruction. Therefore, it was advised that the delivery of the baby would require immediate surgery and the mother will have to be taken to a hospital where pediatric surgeons help is available round the clock. The 2^nd opposite party is a paediatric surgeon and Smt. Snehalatha was admitted in that hospital for delivery. As per document No. 2, the 2^nd opposite party had issued a referral letter to Amrutha Hospital, Ernakulam. According to the 2^nd opposite party, the baby had ileal alresic with adrenal loops. The baby was admitted on 06-05-2004 and was discharged on 17-05-2004. Again the baby was re-admitted on 08-06-2004 and was treated in the opposite party hospital till 10-06-2004, on which date, she was discharged with a referral to admit at Amrutha Hospital for further management. Document No. 3 also would go to show that the treatment period at the opposite party hospital was on 10-06-2004. The baby had undergone the surgery at Amrutha Hospital during June 2004 and she was discharged in July 2004. At the time of discharge, as per document No. 4, it is seen that the patient baby was on treatment for gangrenous ulcer over the left forearm. There was slough present over the left forearm ulcer. Slough cutting was done, encircling the forearm. Document No. 5 is the discharge card issued from T.D. Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha on 31-07-2004 after having admitted her on 15-07-2004. Document No. 6 is the discharge card issued from the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha in the year 2010, while the baby was admitted for the treatment of wrist drop of left hand. It is also seen noted that the details were not known. On going through the documents, it is seen that the complainant's baby was treated in the opposite party hospital in the year 2004 and that the gangrenous formation was known to the complainant even at the time of discharge from Amrutha Hospital in the year 2004.

3. Now, the complaint has been filed by the complainant in the year 2014 after a period of 10 years from the date of discharge of the complainant's daughter from the opposite party hospital. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant was waiting for a time lag to get the original document available in the hospital destroyed in the usual course of time, so as to make a claim, which should have prevented the opposite parties to produce the original documents, before this Forum. We find substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand submitted that there are documents to substantiate treatments from the year 2004 onwards, which would go to show that gangrene formed on the left hand of the baby was due to the negligence of the 2^nd opposite party, during the treatment in the 1^st opposite party hospital. However, in spite of keeping the claim dormant for the last 10 years, the complainant was unable to produce any scrap of evidence to prima-facie show that there was negligence on the part of the opposite parties, in having formed gangrene on the child. There is nothing on record, produced by the complainant to show that formation of gangrenous was due to the negligence of the opposite parties, while conducting the surgery. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the cause of action of the complaint, if at all any had arisen in the year 2004 and the complaint filed after 10 years in this Forum is not maintainable, on the ground that it was time barred. Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 prescribes the period of limitation of 2 years from the date of cause of action. The complainant has not pleaded that there was any sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of 2 years. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel that the cause of action is still surviving. We are not in agreement to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the complainant that the cause of action survived even now. We have no hesitation to hold that the complainant was not able to produce any documents let alone reliable documents, to substantiate such a contention.

4. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, being barred by limitation under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3^rd day of March 2015.

Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Forwarded/By order,

Senior Superintendent.