BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY

FRIDAY, the 17^th day of November, 2017

FIRST APPPEAL No. 15/2016

Ramar, S/o Selvaraj,

No.29, Mariamman Koil Street,

Morrisan Thottam,

Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry                    ……….                                              Appellant

                                                                             Vs.

1. The Union of India,

    Rep. by the Chief Secretary to Govt.,

    Govt. of U.T. of Puducherry,

    Puducherry.

2. The Medical Superintendent,

    Indira Gandhi Medical College & Research

         Institute,

    Puducherry.

3. The Director,

    JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry                   ………….                                      Respondents

(On appeal against the order passed in M.P.No.27/2015, dt.23.07.2015 by District Forum, Puducherry)

M.P.No.27/2015 in Un-Numbered Complaint of 2015

Ramar, S/o Selvaraj,

No.29, Mariamman Koil Street,

Morrisan Thottam,

Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry                    ……….                         Petitioner/Complainant

                                                                             Vs.

1. The Union of India,

    Rep. by the Chief Secretary to Govt.,

    Govt. of U.T. of Puducherry,

    Puducherry.

2. The Medical Superintendent,

    Indira Gandhi Medical College & Research

         Institute, Puducherry.

3. The Director,

    JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry                   ………….                            Respondents/O.Ps

BEFORE:

HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,

PRESIDENT

THIRU. S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,

MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Thiru.K.Ashok Kumar,

Advocate, Puducherry.

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Thiru M.Nakkeeran

Government Pleader, Puducherry – for Respondents 1 & 2

S.Grace Ambumani,

Advocate, Puducherry  -  for R3.

O   R    D    E    R

            This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry, dated 23.07.2015 made in M.P.27/2015 in Un-Numbered Complaint of 2015.

            2. The petitioner/complainant before the District Forum is the appellant herein and the opposite parties thereon are the respondents.

            3. The parties are referred in the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum for the sake of convenience.

            4. The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties on the death of his wife alleging that treatment has not been properly taken care of by the hospital authorities. However, the complaint has been filed after a delay of 147 days and hence the complainant preferred the application in M.P.27/2015 to condone the said delay. It was stated in the affidavit that after the death of his wife, the complainant fell ill in mental agony and bed-ridden and hence he could not contact his counsel to file the complaint.

            5. However, it has been resisted by the opposite parties that no medical certificate has been filed by the complainant and he has not shown sufficient reasons for such a long delay in preferring the complaint.

            6. The District Forum considering the objections raised on behalf of the opposite parties, dismissed the application holding that the complainant has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 147 days. Therefore, the present appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum.

            7. On going through the grounds raised in the appeal, we felt that sufficient grounds have not been raised and therefore the counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant sought time to file additional grounds of appeal. He has filed an application seeking permission to file additional grounds of appeal and the said application  M.P.30/2017 was allowed by us and additional grounds are filed. In the additional grounds of appeal, one of the grounds raised by the complainant is that his wife at the time of death has left two years old 1^st child and a new born, who is just 15 days old and he was taking care of the children and therefore had to physically, mentally and emotionally take care of his children and he was also extremely depressed by the death of his wife. Therefore, he could not take legal advice to file the complaint.  In our considered view, having lost his wife that too leaving small children referred to above, definitely the complainant would have suffered physically, mentally and emotionally. Therefore, the filing of the complaint with a delay of 147 days should not have been taken seriously by the District Forum.  Though the required medical certificate has not been filed before the District Forum, we are of the view that the benevolent legislation like the Consumer Protection Act, cannot be construed strictly.  Therefore, taking a lenient view, we inclined to set-aside the order passed by the District Forum and the delay in preferring the complaint is condoned.

            8. In fine, the appeal stands allowed. The District Forum is directed to number the complaint and dispose of the same at the earliest.  However, there is no costs.

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2017

(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

                                                                                              MEMBER