LT.COL.D.R.S.ARORA vs ANANT SHUKLA

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.12.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 513/1996.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant filed this complaint for recovery of damages against the doctor. According to complainant he had a dislocation of shoulder bone. He consulted the opposite party and got admitted on 13.7.1993 in the Madnani Nursing Home of the opposite party at 10 a.m. THE doctor Anant Shukla, who was an Orthopaedic Surgeon in that Nursing Home got the dislocation set right and also treated him. On account of negligence of the doctor, his shoulder did not improve. THEreafter the complainant got an X-ray done in the Military Hospital and also consulted other doctors. Those doctors reported that his shoulder bone has not been correctly set right. On account of non-setting of shoulder bone corrected, he has suffered a lot of pain. THEre has been some loss of sensation in the fingers also. THE complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as medical expenses which he will be spending in future. The opposite party in its written version has denied the allegations of the complainant and alleged that the opposite party has selected a doctor for treatment of the complainant. When the complainant was admitted in the Nursing Home, his condition was absolutely right. According to the doctor, the bone was correctly set and there was no deficiency in service. It has further been alleged that the treatment was got done in July, 1995 while the complaint has been filed in July, 1996. Hence it is barred by limitation.

The learned District Forum after considering the case of the parties came to the conclusion that the complaint is barred by limitation and it dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the District Forum has wrongly held that the claim petition was barred by limitation. According to the learned Counsel the limitation period is three years while according to the learned Counsel for the opposite party the limitation is only two years.

IN the present case the accident happened on 13.7.1993 and the doctor attending the complainant on 14.7.1993. The complainant could not recover as alleged by him. For the last time the doctor attended the complainant on 31.8.1993. According to the learned Counsel, the complaint has been filed in June, 1996 after a lapse of more than two years. Previously the limitation for filing complaint was three years but by an amendment made in June, 1993 the period of limitation was reduced to two years. In the present case the complainant had availed the services of the opposite party lastly on 31.8.1993. He should have filed this complaint within a period of two years from that date. The complaint has been filed much after this period of two years. Hence the learned District Forum has rightly held that the complaint is barred by limitation. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not show any law on the basis of which it can be said that the present complaint is not barred by limitation. Thus it is held that the District Forum was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the complaint is barred by limitation. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.