JAI SINGH vs Satish Khurana

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 17.08.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 964/2007, "Dr. Satish Khurana versus Jai Singh " vide which, while allowing appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani, allowing the complaint was set aside and consumer complaint no. 603/2003 filed by the present petitioner/complainant was ordered to be dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent/OP Dr. Satish Khurana held an eye camp in village Luhari Jatu, District Bhiwani, Haryana, where the complainant was advised by the OP Doctor to visit his hospital at Bhiwani for operation of his eye and implanting lens in the eye. The very next day, the complainant visited the hospital of OP No. 1 Bhiwani and got himself operated and paid a sum of Rs.1,550/- to the Doctor. It has been alleged by the complainant that the lens was implanted during the operation of the eye, but after this procedure, his eye was totally damaged. The complainant filed consumer complaint no. 603/2003 before the District Forum, claiming a compensation of Rs.5 lakh from the respondent/OP. The OP took the stand that the complainant had never been operated by him nor did he implant lens in his eye. The District Forum vide their order dated 06.03.2007 allowed the complaint and directed the OP Doctor to pay a sum of Rs.1.5 lakh, along with litigation fee of Rs.1,000/-. An appeal filed against this order was, however, allowed by the State Commission vide their order dated 17.08.2011 and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain the delay of 97 days in filing the revision petition. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the application for condonation of delay filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the revision petition, in which it has been stated that the petitioner is an old-age person and that he lost his right eye due to the negligence of the Doctor and now he is living in hardship due to lack of vision and lack of physical strength. The petitioner could not contact his counsel at Chandigarh due to old-age ailments. When he came to know about the fate of the case decided by the State Commission, he tried to obtain certified copy of the order passed by the State Commission. It has further been stated that the petitioner took time to arrange money for filing the revision petition and under these circumstances, the said delay occurred.

WE have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us and perused the record. The reasons cited by the petitioner in his application for condonation of delay, or at the time of arguments, do not appear to be convincing by any yardstick. The impugned order was passed in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner/complainant and hence he is supposed to be in knowledge of the said order. It has been stated in the copy of the order of the State Commission, filed with the revision petition that the certified copy of the order was given free of cost to the counsel of the party on 21.09.2011. Another duplicate copy was given on 16.1.2012. It is clear, therefore, that after receiving the copy of the order on 21.09.2011, the petitioner did not file his revision petition within the prescribed time.

IT has been observed by the Hon ''ble Apex Court in a number of recent judgements that unless cogent and convincing reasons are given for condonation of delay in filing a revision petition, the same should not be condoned. Reference may be given to the orders passed by the Apex Court in R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, where it has been observed: "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition. " In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed: "It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. "

HON ''ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under; "We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. "

HON ''ble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments. Hon ''ble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - Ansul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed as under: "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 ".

AS discussed above, in the present case, no convincing explanation has been given for the inordinate delay in filing the revision petition. The reason given that the petitioner could not arrange funds in time for filing the revision petition does not appear to be a valid reason at all. Under the circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is ordered to be rejected and consequently, the revision petition is also ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.