K.G.KUMARAN vs SANTHARAM SHETTY

APPELLANT was the respondent before the State Commission where he had filed a complaint alleging negligence on the part of the respondents which was dismissed as barred by limitation.

FACTS leading to filing of this complaint was that the complainant fell from his house on 13.8.1989 and was admitted in a Primary Health Centre where after preliminary treatment was referred to respondent, City Hospital wherein he got himself admitted on 20.8.1989 where he was treated. His case was last reviewed on 24.4.1990 in City Hospital. He went to another hospital in July, 1993 where he was operated on 5.8.1993. It is after this operation he realised the negligence on the part of the respondents. The complaint before the State Commission came to be filed on 13.6.1996 which was dismissed after hearing both the parties at length as barred by limitation, hence this appeal.

The only point argued before us is that he was both physically and mentally not in a position to file the complaint earlier. The cause of action arose on 3.8.1993 and the State Commission should have condoned the delay, if any, on health grounds alone. He had appeared twice before the State Commission, both the times supported by two persons, which is a proof enough that he was not in physical condition to file the complaint. On the other hand it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondents in fact the cause of action arose in 1989 against them and not in 1993. The only allegation is that MRI was not done. The case relates to 1989 whereas MRI facility came to India only in 1991. State Commission was right in dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation.

WE heard the arguments and perused the material on record. Admitted position is that treatment by the respondents was given during the period 20.8.1989 to 24.4.1990. After that the complainant was never heard of till receipt of notice in filing of the complaint by the complainant. Cause of action indeed does arise in April, 1990. Filing of complaint in 1996 is clearly time barred. As stated by the State Commission even if cause of action is taken to arise from August, 1993 then complaint should have been filed by August, 1995. It was filed in June, 1996. As rightly held no proof of his having been bed-ridden is on record to substantiate his contention of his physical inability to file the appeal. Every day''s delay is to be explained, hence, what we have is an omnibus assertion of his inability to file the appeal which we find to be not acceptable. All the points raised before us have been gone into by the State Commission with which we are in full agreement. The complaint was time barred. Sufficient grounds were not shown to condone the delay. WE see no merit in this appeal, hence, dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.