DR. MAHESH S. BHATAMBRE vs NIKHIL MAHESH RODGE

This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 03.10.2016 passed in First Appeal No. 712 of 2016 by Maharasthra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad, whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal of the complainant.

The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainant, Master Nikhil was treated by Dr. Mahesh S. Bhatambre (OP) for the complaint of fever on 27.06.2011. He was admitted in OPs hospital from 27.6.2011 to 15.8.2011. At the time of discharge, it was found that the vision of complainant was affected and the OP diagnosed it as Steven Johnson Syndrome. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to Dr. L. V. Prasad, Eye Institute, Hyderabad and treated for a long period i.e. from 2011 to 2014. Finally, on 25.2.2014, the doctors at Hyderabad concluded that Nikhil''s both eyes were affected and he could see upto one meter only. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint for alleged medical negligence on 24.7.2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Latur (hereinafter referred as ''the District Forum'').

The OP filed the written statement and resisted the complaint on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the stipulation time and limitation i.e. more than 11 months and 8 days. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. It has observed that the cause of action took place on 15.8.2011 and as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint should have been filed within two years i.e. till 14.8.2013 but the complaint has been filed on 24.7.2014 i.e. after a delay of 11 months 8 days.

Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the complainant preferred first appeal before Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred as ''the State Commission''). The State Commission allowed the appeal with the observation that cause of action was continuous since 11.2.2011 wherein the complainant No. 1, Master Nikhil was under treatment for a long time and who was finally diagnosed in the year 2014.

Being aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the OP preferred this revision petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None present on behalf of respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the complaint was filed after huge delay. It was not within limitation period as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, therefore, it is to be dismissed. There was no medical negligence during the treatment of the complainant. Further, the complainant has not made the doctors as a parties to the consumer complaint because the complainant took the treatment in several hospitals.

I have perused the evidence on record of both the parties. It is pertinent to note that initially, the complainant was treated from 27.6.2011 till 15.8.2011 by the OP. Thereafter, he was under treatment and observation of Dr. L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad and there he came to know that his eyes got affected. Thus, it was a cause of action continuously present till the knowledge of the complainant about alleged injury. The complaint was filed before the District Forum on 6.8.2016. Therefore, it was well within the prescribed time of limitation of two years.

On the basis of foregoing discussion, I do not find any irregularity in well-reasoned order of the State Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed and the complaint is remanded back to the District Forum, Latur to decide the complaint on merit expeditiously within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.