State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hemraj vs Shashakiya Jila Hospital on 5 December, 2018
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 59/2018 FILED ON 25.08.2018 DECIDED ON 05.12.2018 HEMRAJ, S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA, R/O 476 N2 B-SECTOR, GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL (M.P.). ... COMPLAINANT. Versus 1. GOVERNMEN DISTRICT HOSPITAL, RAISENT, DISTRICT-RAISEN (M.P.) 2. DR. B. N. PATIDAR, GOVERNMEN DISTRICT HOSPITAL, RAISENT, DISTRICT-RAISEN (M.P.) ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. BEFORE : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR : PRESIDENT HON'BLE SHRI S. D. AGARWAL : MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES: Ms. Kalpana Verma, learned counsel with the complainant Hemraj. O R D E R (Passed On 05.12.2018)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik:
This is a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (For short the 'Act') filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties in performing Sterilization Operation seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
2. Briefly put, the case of the complainant is such that he is a poor labourer and is Below Poverty Line (BPL) Card Holder. The complainant had two children from his marriage in 1977. The complainant further did not want to extend his family, therefore, he contacted Dr. B. N. Patidar, who advised him to undergo sterilization operation. On 07.02.1986, the complainant got admitted in District Hospital, Raisen where Dr. B. N. Patidar performed sterilization operation on him and accordingly a certificate to this effect was issued. After seven years of his operation his wife got pregnant and a son was born on 21.06.1989. Subsequently, another daughter was born on 22.04.1994. The complainant felt aggrieved by this undesired responsibility of raising two more children approached the opposite parties and the Health Department. However, there was not -2- redressal of his greivances. Therefore, he filed a complaint before this Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.
3. Heard complainant as also his counsel on IA-2, on question of delay in filing the complaint.
4. We observe that as per complainant's own submission, the sterilization operation was performed on him on 07.02.1986. As per his own submission due to alleged failure of the said operation, on 21.06.1989 he again became father and subsequently he became father of the fourth child on 22.04.1994, the present complaint is filed by him on 25.08.2018.
5. The complainant has filed an application under Section 24A of the 'Act' seeking condonation of delay in filing this complaint. As per complainant's own submission the cause of action arose on 21.06.1989, when he became father of the first child after sterilization operation was performed on him. As per provisions of the 'Act', the complaint is to be filed within a period of two years from occurence of cause of action. It is apparent that the complainant did not choose to take any action, when the first child was born after alleged failure of sterilization operation within the time frame specified under the 'Act'. Nor do we find any evidence which could suggest that he initiated any action against the opposite parties that could sufficiently explain the delay caused in filing the present complaint. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore, the complainant's application filed under Section 24A, seeking condonation of delay in filing complaint is dismissed.
6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed summarily, as barred by limitation.
(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (S. D. AGARWAL) (DR. MONIKA MALIK) PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Dubey