1.       This Revision Petition, under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by District Superintendent & Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Karimnagar and District Medical & Health Officer, Karimnagar, Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the order dated 24.10.2017, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short “the State Commission”), in FAIA No. 1011/2017 in/and FASR No. 3015/2017.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners as barred by limitation.            

2.       The Appeal had been preferred by the Petitioners against the order, dated 27.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karimnagar (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 49 of 2008.  By the said order, while partly allowing the Complaint, preferred by Respondent No.1/Complainant, the District Forum had directed the Opposite Parties, i.e. the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 herein, to jointly and severally pay to the Complainant compensation of ₹6,00,000/- as compensation on account of failure of a Tubectomy operation and litigation costs, quantified at ₹50,000/-, within 30 days, failing which the said amounts were to carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.

3.       The Complainant, who was working as a coolie (labourer) and already had two sons, had undergone Tubectomy operation, which had been conducted by Respondent No.2/Doctor at the Civil Hospital, Karimnagar on 15.01.2006.  A certificate to the effect that the operation was successfully completed was issued to the Complainant on 18.01.2006.  Even thereafter, when the Complainant conceived again, in order to have the pregnancy aborted, she approached the said Doctor, who prescribed her some medicines with advice to continue with the pregnancy, as she had anemia. Eventually, the Complainant gave birth to her third child on 12.09.2007.  Faced with the birth of an unwanted child and the fact that she did not have means to look after her family, which consisted of her diabetic husband, a mentally retarded sister and two sons, the Complainant filed the afore-noted Complaint before the District Forum, alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties on the aforesaid counts.  In the Complaint, compensation of ₹10,00,000/- for bringing up the said child had been prayed for.

4.       Upon notice, the Opposite Parties contested the Complaint.     

5.       On evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the District Forum partly allowed the Complaint and issued the aforesaid directions to the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioners herein.

6.       Aggrieved, the Petitioners carried the matter further in their Appeal to the State Commission, albeit, with a delay of 772 days.  For condonation of the said delay, the Petitioner/Appellant had furnished the following explanation: 

“10.    It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner did not receive the copy of the final order from the Learned District Forum, Karimnagar nor from the Govt. Pleader who had appeared for the petitioners and the respondent No.2.  The Petitioners became aware of the issue of non-bailable warrant against the petitioners on 18.08.2017 over phone from the present Govt. Pleader at Karimnagar.  Immediately, myself and 1^st respondent approached the Govt. Pleader and came to know that the orders in C.C. No. 49 of 2008 were passed on 28.07.2015 against the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent.  Immediately, petitioners have enquired in their office about receipt of the orders and notices from the Hon’ble District Forum, Karimnagar in the execution application filed by the 1^st respondent alleging of non-compliance of the orders in P.P. No. 16 of 2016 and it is found that the office of the 1^st respondent was served with the notice on 06.06.2016 but same was not brought to the notice of the higher officer nor the District Medical and Health Officer was apprised off.  The petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- before the District Forum on 23.08.2017.

11.     It is further submitted that, all the notices received at the office of the petitioners are entered into the Inward register and placed before the Heads of Institutions i.e., Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Karimnagar and the District Medical and Health Officer, Karimnagar respectively.  The petitioners have examined the Inward Registers and found that no orders and notices were entered into the Inward Register nor any notice was brought to their notice.  There was no occasion for the petitioners to know about the orders to carry the matter to Appellant Court till they were informed of the order of issue of non-bailable warrants.

12.     It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioners could not pursue the case and take the required steps as the orders and notices were not served on them.  Literally, petitioners came to know of the orders only on 18.08.2007 and the petitioners have requested the Government Pleader to furnish copy of the order and copies of the complaint, replies filed and other material documents.  Immediately petitioners have sought for instructions and the matter was also brought to the notice of Commissioner of Family Welfare and they were advised to challenge the order passed by the Learned District Forum before the Hon’ble State Commission.”

7.       As noted above, while coming to the conclusion that the Petitioners had failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the Appeal, the State Commission has declined to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the Appeal as barred by limitation.

8.       Hence, the present Revision Petition. 

9.       The short question falling for consideration in this Revision Petition is whether or not the State Commission has committed any jurisdictional error in not exercising the discretion vested in it under the First Proviso to Section 15 of the Act for condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal.     

10.     We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners on the question of delay. 

11.     Having carefully examined the afore-extracted explanation for the delay in filing the Appeal, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the conclusion that no sufficient cause has been made out by the Petitioners to explain the inordinate delay of 772 days in filing the Appeal.            

12.     The afore-stated delay was sought to be explained by the Petitioners on the grounds that: neither the District Forum nor the Government Pleader, who had been appearing on their behalf before the District Forum, had sent to them the copy of the final order in the Complaint; on 18.08.2017 the Government Pleader had informed them about the issue of non-bailable warrants against them; on subsequent enquiries, they came to know that on 06.06.2016 notice was served in the office of Opposite Party No.1 but neither the higher officers were informed about the same nor was there any entry in the Inward Registers to the effect that any notice had been received by the Petitioners; on issue of non-bailable warrants on 18.08.2017, necessary documents were called for from the Government Pleader and thereafter the Appeal was filed before the State Commission with aforesaid delay.

13.     At the outset, it may be noted that it was not the case of the Petitioners that they were not aware about the proceedings pending before the District Forum.  Evidently, they were duly represented by their Counsel before the District Forum and had also filed their Written Versions.  In such a situation, even if there was no feedback from the said Counsel as regards developments taking place in the said proceedings, they were required to keep a track of the matter and not to depend solely on the Counsel.  Hence, the stated plea of the Petitioners seems to be an afterthought to cover the lapse already committed.  Further, Learned Counsel appearing on their behalf has candidly admitted that on inspection of the Dispatch Register, maintained by the District Forum, it was found that a copy of the order passed in the Complaint had been dispatched to the Petitioners.  For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that the Petitioners had no knowledge about the said order, a perusal of the averments made in the Application shows that on 06.06.2016 (it should be 03.06.2016) notice in Execution Application No. EA/16/2016, filed by the Complainant for enforcement of the said order, was served on the Petitioners.  Interestingly, on enquiries made online as regards the case status of the said Execution Application, we also find that in response to the said notice, on 06.06.2016 the Government Pleader had filed his memo of appearance on behalf of the Judgment Debtors and, hence, the plea of the Petitioners that they came to know about passing of the impugned order only on 18.08.2017, when the District Forum had issued non-bailable warrants against them, is factually incorrect, and deserves to be rejected.  Evidently, it was only on issue of the said warrants that the Petitioners woke up from their deep slumber and filed the Appeal before the State Commission, with the afore-stated inordinate delay.   

14.     In view of the above, we are of the view that the Petitioners were all through negligent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Act, be it on behalf of the Complainant or on their own behalf.  If they were so concerned about the directions issued to them by the District Forum, they ought to have pursued the case with due diligence and alacrity, which evidently is not the case here.   

15.     Bearing in mind the afore-stated facts and the above observations as also the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are of the opinion that the Petitioners had failed to make out any cause, much less a “sufficient cause” for condonation of the afore-stated inordinate delay in filing the Appeal and, hence, the State Commission, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, did not commit any jurisdictional error in dismissing the Appeal as barred by limitation.                    

16.     Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine accordingly.