DHARAMVEER GUPTA ALIAS PRADEEP GUPTA vs DR. S.C. SINGHAL, M.B.B.S.

This is the case of alleged medical negligence filed by the petitioner/ complainant, Mr. Dharamveer Gupta alias Pradeep Gupta against OP/Dr. S. C. Singhal on 9.12.2010 before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, Dehradun dismissed the complaint on 22.11.2011.

Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the complainant preferred first appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alongwith application for condonation of delay of 257 days (M.A. No. 93 of 2012) in filing the said appeal. The State Commission dismissed the application and the delay was not condoned and consequently, appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation.

Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

We have heard learned counsel, Mr. Maroof Ahmed, for the complainant. He vehemently argued that the delay was not intentional and on merits, he can prove the alleged negligence committed by the OP/doctor. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the certified copy of the impugned order was received on 20.1.2012, because the complainant was under treatment for a long time at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.

We have perused the application for condonation of delay (M.A. No. 93 of 2012) filed before the State Commission. The reasons for condonation of delay are explained as follows: "2. That the deponent had preferred a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Forum, Dehradun which was registered as case No. 269/2010 titled Dharamveer Gupta vs. Dr. S. C. Singhal which was decided by the Hon''ble District Forum vide its judgment dated 22.11.20011.

That the counsel for the deponent/appellant applied the certified copy of the judgment on 20.01.2012 and thereafter made it available it to deponent/appellant.

That the deponent/appellant was not medically fit and was bed ridden and was advised complete bed rest (the medical is attached here with) and was recommended to take leave from 01-01-2012 till 15-07-2012.

That the deponent/appellant again on the 16-07-2012 was prescribed treatment from PGI, Chandigarh and again visited PGI Chandigarh on the 01-08-2011.

That the deponent/appellant was bed ridden from 01-08-2012 and was suggested bed rest. The deponent/appellant contacted the counsel on 03.09.2012 and thereafter the appeal is being filed on 05.09.2012 before this Hon''ble State Commission."

To ascertain the truth, we have perused the medical certificate Annexure A-6. It revealed that the patient was suffering from "INH induced neuropathy" and he has been recommended "leave" from 1.1.2012 to 15.7.2012. The certificate does not mention anything about condition of the complainant/patient whether he was completely bed ridden or advised complete bed rest. It is rather surprising to note that the medical certificate does not bear any date on which the same was issued. The complainant was driver by profession. There is no evidence whether he was employed anywhere but the medical certificate was issued in respect of "LEAVE". The certificate is also devoid of details whether he was hospitalized/admitted or not. Another annexure A-7 is Out Patient Card dated 1.8.2012, which revealed only treatment aspect. It is also not a conclusive proof whether the petitioner was completely bed ridden. The medical certificate does not show whether the person was totally incapacitated or immobile, which had prevented him to approach the counsel for 7 to 8 months. Thus, under such circumstances, delay cannot be condoned. As per medical literature "INH Induced Neuropathy" is a peripheral neuropathy, which is a reversible condition. It is due to drug Isonized (INH) used for tuberculosis and seen in the patients about 0.2 to 2 % patient with long term INH therapy.

The catena of judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Commission have not condoned the delay, which was not explained properly. In the case of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), the delay of 150 days was not condoned. In that case, it was held that : " It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras ".

Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) = I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108; Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 and Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221

The Apex Court in a recent case i.e. Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days. Likewise, delay of 78 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013. Again delay of 77 days was not condoned in case of Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. & Area Dev. Boa & Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.

Therefore, relying upon the judgments cited above (supra), in our view, the petitioner has not explained sufficient ground for condonation of delay while filing the first appeal before State Commission. It is a time barred appeal.

On the basis of foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the petitioner/complainant approached this Commission with the intention to harass the doctor by filing frivolous complaint and then appeal with delay of 257 days. It is an after-thought. Therefore, we dismiss this revision petition with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The complainant shall pay Rs.1,000/- to the OP within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 12% per annum till its realization.