HARVINDER SINGH vs SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL & 5 ORS

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 6.12.2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Complaint No. C-2012/328 - Harvinder Singh Vs. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital & Ors. by which, complaint was dismissed in default.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant filed complaint against OP/respondent for claiming compensation of Rs.85,00,000/- on account of medical negligence which was dismissed in default by impugned order against which, this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay of 551 days.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that on account of misconduct of previous counsel delay was caused in filing appeal; hence, delay be condoned and impugned order be set aside and complaint be restored. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay, hence, application for condonation of delay be dismissed and appeal be dismissed.

As per office report, there is delay of 551 days in filing appeal, but in the application for condonation delay 560 days delay has been shown. It was submitted in the application that previous counsel Shri Sachin Mishra did not discharge professional duties and he handled case negligently and further committed misconduct by misleading appellant with regard to restoration of the complaint. It was further submitted that he made complaint against the Counsel with Bar Council of Delhi for necessary action; so, delay may be condoned.

In support of the application, he has placed on record copy of complaint dated 12.6.2014 made to Chairman, Bar Council of Delhi and copy of proceedings of Bar Council of Delhi which reveals that Bar Council of Delhi issued notice to the said Counsel on 14.1.2015 and on 3.6.2015 Mr. D.D. Pandey appeared on behalf of the respondent before Bar Council of Delhi. Thus, it

becomes clear that complainant has initiated action against his previous Counsel Mr. Sachin Mishra before Bar Council of Delhi and in such circumstances, there is reasonable explanation for condonation of delay.

As complaint has been dismissed in default and Counsel for the respondent was also not present at the time of passing impugned order, it would be appropriate to condone delay subject to cost and restore the complaint.

Consequently, application for condonation of delay filed by appellant is allowed and delay stands condoned subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- to Respondent No.1 and appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and order dated 6.12.2012 passed by learned State Commission ) in Complaint No. C-2012/328 - Harvinder Singh Vs. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital & Ors. is set aside and complaint is restored at its original number.

Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 29.9.2015 and learned State Commission is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.