S. Alagusundarammal vs V. Karuppiah

THE Revision Petition is filed against the impugned order of Tamil Nadu State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, State Commission, Tamil Nadu) in First Appeal No. 95/2011 against the Consumer Complaint No. CC/188/2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Virudhunagar. (In short District Forum).

FACTS in Brief: On 06.08.1999, the complainant admitted his wife Thangam (deceased) for her third delivery in the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam. On 9.8.1999 the complainant was informed that caesarian delivery of Thangam to be conducted at 10 am. The OP instead of attending Thangam attended another delivery. Therefore, the complainant ''s wife was taken to operation theatre at 11-25 AM who gave birth to a female child and subsequently Thangam died at 12-05 PM. Hence, alleging death of Thangam due to negligence of OP due to delay in the delivery. The complainant has been filed before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.200000/-.

District forum dismissed the complaint with observations as the Complainant is not a consumer.

AGAINST the order of District Forum the Complainant preferred an appeal FA 388/2002 before the State Commission. The state commission in it ''s order dated 31/10/2006 held that the Complainant is a consumer. The case was remanded back to District Forum for fresh consideration on the specific clarification as word "ES " mentioned in a case sheet of Thangam whether "Elective Surgery " or "Emergency Surgery ".

THEREAFTER , the District Forum decided the case as a fresh and on merits and passed an order directing the OPs to pay Rs.50000/-as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost. Against the order of District Forum the OP filed an appeal FA 95/2011 before State Commission which dismissed the appeal with following observations: "On perusal of the case records, it is found that on the date of admission of the complainant, under Ex,. B3 it is recorded as DIL i.e., Dangerously ill. On 8.8.99 also it is recorded so. But the operation performed belatedly only on 9.8.99. We are unable to find any reason for any immediate steps taken by the opposite parties when it is noted as DIL. Though they state that the surgery need for the complainant ''s wife is an Elective one, there is no explanation on the part of the opposite parties about the recording as ''Dangerously ill ". Thus, irresistibly we reiterate that the opposite parties have utterly failed to prove themselves. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal. "

AGGRIEVED by the impugned order of State Commission, the OP filed this revision.

WE have heard the counsel for the both the parties and perused the evidence on record. The first point of consideration that there is huge delay of 260 days in filing this revision.

COUNSEL for the parties heard. The application moved by petitioner for condonation of delay did not specify the sufficient cause for delay. The petitioner explained the delay in " para 3 of application as: "3. I submit that I was under impression that Government will file an Appeal before this Hon ''ble Commission. But it did not do so and on contrary, the medical officer directed me to pay the compensation amount. Therefore, I decided to appeal against the State Commission order. Hence, there is delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal. "

IT is clear that the ground set up by the petitioner was procedural and departmental delay, which is not ground for condonation of delay as per the Apex Court orders. On this point we have referred several judgments of Hon ''ble Apex Court and this commission. In the judgment of Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. 2012 STPL (Web) 132 (SC), Hon ''ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold: "13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/ years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.

ALSO we have placed reliance upon the celebrated authorities i) Anshul Aggarwal V. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), ii) R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)-I (2009) SLT 701-2009 (2) Scale 108 and iii) Ram Lal and Others V. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361.

FURTHERMORE , it is necessary to explain that the C.P. Act envisages summary procedure where special period is mentioned for disposing of appeals and revision petitions. The Commission cannot adopt excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of the C.P. Act. The case is squarely barred by time. Now, considering the petition on merits; the State commission has rightly observed as stated in para 6 supra. It is quite surprise that the why OP delayed Elective Caesarean Surgery of Thangam patient despite it was recorded as "Dangerously ill " on admission slip. Also, the death of patient within 30 mins of Elective Surgery creates many doubts upon the conduct and treatment by OP. As, even though it was a Govt hospital OP should have advised the post mortem for the cause of death of Thangam. Hence, the entirety appears to be deficiency in service by the OP.

IT is the fact that in present days the Hippocratic Oath is at stake; Medical Ethics are being violated by some medical professionals have led to demoralized health services to the poor who lost their precious life.!! In this present case deficiency in service by the Complainant lost his wife as well as the new born baby deprived of her mother ''s love and feed from birth.

HENCE , with all forgoing discussions we are of considered view that, this revision petition sans the merit as well there is huge delay which cannot be condoned. We dismiss this revision petition with modification of orders of for a below as; the OP is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint. In addition we impose punitive cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to complainant. This order should be complied within 45 days; otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.