By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:-
Complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to get cost and compensation for the deficiency of service from the side of the opposite parties.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant sustained fracture on his left hand on 14.06.2007 and got treatment from the hospital run by the opposite parties. On 15.06.2007, the complainant was undergone an operation from the said hospital. Even after operation, due to the negligence of the opposite parties, the fractured bone did not re-joined. Then complainant was forced to adopt other treatments from outside. The complainant is suffering pain even now and it is due to the sheer negligence of opposite parties. Complainant was working as a hotel cook and was getting Rs.450/- daily wage. Now the complainant is facing much hardships and cannot do any job as earlier. So he lost the daily income. The complainant again got treatments from the hospital of opposite parties as on 15.09.2007, 22.12.2007, 06.04.2008, 16.08.2008, 11.03.2009, 28.09.2009, 18.03.2010, 29.05.2010 and 19.07.2010. The complainant incurred more than one lakh for his treatments.
2. So the complainant prays for an Order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as the expenses met by him and for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. The opposite parties entered in appearance and filed version denying all the material allegations in the complaint. The opposite parties contented that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or on law. No deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. There is a delay of 5 year in filing the complaint and reasonable cause is not shown by the complainant. So the complaint is barred by limitation. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the opposite parties. Then the opposite party filed I.A No.224/12 for a preliminary hearing of maintainability on the basis of limitation.
4. In I.A No.224/12, complainant filed counter and both sides heard. The Forum found that the complainant did not produced any reliable document to substantiate the delay. On perusal of complaint and version and the documents produced by the complainant the Forum found that the complaint is barred by limitation hence not maintainable as per law and hence the I.A No.224/12 is allowed and complaint dismissed.
Hence the complaint is dismissed the I.A No.142/12 filed for condoning the delay is also dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 2nd day of December 2013.
Date of Filing:12.06.2012
