AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, against the order dated 30.05.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1075/14, preferred by the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner herein. By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined to condone the delay of 1 year 2 months caused in filing of the Appeal and has consequently dismissed the Appeal as barred by limitation at the admission stage.
The Appeal, together with the Application, seeking condonation of delay, had been preferred by the Opposite Parties, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 21.08.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V), North-West, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 1762 of 2007, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant. By the said order, the District Forum, while, inter alia, holding that the Petitioner was liable to compensate the Complainant, who was 45 years of age, for her miserable condition, inasmuch as her left hand/arm had been amputated, had allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a sum of 5,00,000/- as compensation for the disability suffered by her on account of wrongful and negligent treatment, besides 5000/- as litigation costs. The District Forum had also directed that in case the said directions were not complied with, within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, the said amounts would carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of the order till payment.
The occasion to file the Complaint arose under the following circumstances: On 31.07.2007, at about 2.00 a.m. the Complainant suffered from vomiting. At the Petitioner Hospital, Opposite Party No.1, its Doctor on duty, examined the Complainant and thereafter glucose was administered to the Complainant, as a result of which blood had started coagulating on her hand. Despite this, the treatment was continued at the Petitioner Hospital. On 02.08.2007, seeing the critical condition of the Complainant, she was referred to RML Hospital for further management. On 03.08.2007, when the Complainant reached the RML Hospital, she was referred to AIIMS, where after examination she was told to come in the OPD the next day. On 04.08.2007, the Complainant was admitted in emergency in AIIMS but was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, where-from she was referred to G.B. Pant Hospital, which refused to admit her and referred her again to the Safdarjung Hospital. The Safdarjung Hospital also again referred the Complainant to the Petitioner Hospital, where she was admitted on 11.08.2007. On 03.09.2007 and operation was performed and her left side hand was amputated. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum. The Complainant had prayed for 9,00,000/- as compensation for permanent disability, 50,000/- on account of pain and agony, and further sum of 20,000/- towards other expenses, including litigation costs.
As noted above, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and issued the afore-noted directions to the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner.
Aggrieved, the Petitioner carried the matter in further Appeal to the State Commission, which dismissed the same on the ground of limitation. Hence, the present Revision Petition.
Since the Appeal has been dismissed by the State Commission on the ground of limitation, I am required to consider the question whether or not the State Commission has committed any jurisdictional error in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it under Proviso to Section 15 of the Act and in not condoning the said delay in filing the Appeal. Accordingly, I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the said question.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Counsel representing the Government Hospital did not pursue whether the District Forum had passed the order or not, as he was expecting that the free copy of the order would come in due course. It is pertinent to note that the date of the District Forum order is 21.08.2013 and it is the submission of the learned Counsel that he had received the order copy on 21.07.2014. A perusal of the application, seeking condonation of delay of 1 year 2 months, which was filed before the State Commission does not state any substantial reasons and also the relevant dates on which the certified copy was applied and on which date it was made available. The explanation given in the said application reads as follows:
"2. That the impugned order was passed on 21.08.2013 and the same was received by the appellant on 21.07.2014 and it is further stated that the appellant No. 1 is working in the government hospital and the appellant is a government hospital itself and being in the government, the appellants have to move the file to the various departments and the approval has to be taken from these Departments as well as the Law and Justice Department of Delhi Government and as such the delay has been caused for seeking the various appeals and for completing the Departmental formalities and further FDR for Rs.25,000/- was to be prepared for filing the appeal and the FDR was received on 30.09.2014.
That the final approval for the issuance of FDR was received by the appellant from the Headquarter and thus the FDR was prepared by the appellant on 30.09.2014 and sent to the counsel through proper channel on 14.10.2014 thus a delay of about one year and two months has occasioned in filing of the present appeal."
From the aforementioned explanation, it is clear that apart from no reasons and dates given, there is also a two month delay even after receipt of the order copy on 21.07.2014 to get the FDR prepared on 30.09.2014. On a pointed query by the Bench as to the date on which the certified copy was applied the learned Counsel submitted that he is not aware of the said date.
The learned Counsel in support of his case relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Delhi High Court in State v. Sachin Shokeen & Ors. (Crl. M.A. No. 25/2013 in Crl. L.P. No. 2/2013) , in which the delay of 92 days had been condoned, as the Respondent could not show that application lacked bonafide reasons or that there was negligence on the part of the State. In the instant case, firstly there is delay of 1 year 2 months, and, secondly, no sufficient cause has been given for the same and, therefore, it cannot be said that the State Commission was wrong in not condoning the delay.
As far as the submission of the Counsel that it is a Government Department and, therefore, certain delay is to be expected, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563] has clearly laid down that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government Departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. The State Commission has rightly relied upon the afore-mentioned judgment. The ''sufficient cause'' cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour, and that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigors, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty.
Bearing in mind 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, I am of the view that the State Commission, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, was justified in declining to condone the delay in filing the Appeal and consequently dismissing the same. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.