National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Nishi Harischandra Tripathi vs P.L. Tiwari And Ors. on 20 September, 2000
ORDER
1. The following order was passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra on 15.11.1999.
"Complainant in person. This complaint is dated 4.3.99. But it is come up before us for admission today, the 15/10/99. We have carefully perused the complaint. We have heard the complainant at length. She admits that the cause of action arose in the year 1986 at Bombay Hospital in Mumbai and thereafter, she was examined at a Hospital at New York, the U.S.A. and the J.J. Hospital in the Bombay and that was also done in 1988 in the New York Hospital. She has approached the State Commission in 1999. We have carefully perused the entire complaint and the paper, we find that it is a very old and stale matter and barred by time. Therefore the complaint is dismissed on the point of limitation".
2. Ms. Nisi Harischandra Tripathi has now filed an Original Petition before this Commission on the same cause of action. The Opposite Parties are (1) Dr. P.L. Tewari, Consult Physician and Cardiologist, Bombay Hospital, (2) Bombay Hospital, Mumbai and (3) Dr. Jamnadas C Patel, Consultant Physician. It has been stated that the cause of action in this case arose on 29.1.1986 when the Complainant met Dr. P.L. Tiwari and also from 12.6.1986 to February, 1993 when she consulted Dr. Patel. The gist of the complaint is that the Complainant - Ms. Nishi Harischandra was under treatment of Dr. P.L. Tiwari upto 15.4.1987. She had consulted Dr. Jamnadas C. Patel in the meantime on 12.6.86 and she was advised to continue to take the same Equasesic tablet. One Dr. Ramakant Keni told her not to take the Equasesic tablet. She stopped taking this tablet after 15.4.1987 on the advice of Dr. Ramakant Keni. She went to New York for treatment and the view of Dr. Ramakant Keni was corroborated by the New York Hospital in 1988 and J.J. Hospital in 1998. She has alleged averse effects in her system after taking equasesic tablets for a prolonged period for which Dr. P.L. Tiwari and Dr. Jamnadas C. Patel were responsible. Ill effects of the medicine (equasesic tablet) have been tabulated in the complaint as under:
(i) Bleeding profusely for 25 days in December, 1985.
(ii) Too much fat and obesity, had to undergo two liposuctions and may have to go for another one.
(iii) Vision was affected, could not distinguish between good and bad things, got involved with a boy, whom she would not have liked to normal circumstances. She realised her mistake she regained her normalcy in 1989.
(iv) Behaved abnormally out of frustration. Sustained injury by breaking drawing board glass as a result of which she suffered wound in her left wrist in November, 1987.
(v) Her career as well as her prospect in life has been ruined by the ill effects of the equasesic tablet. She looks older than her age and the glow of her skin has disappeared.
(vi) She has developed week kidney, fatigue, unable to walk and exercise.
(vii) She has also developed various toxity in her blood system leading to skin infection, diabetes, chronic fatigue, restlessness, severe anemia, chronic low blood pressure, etc.
3. We need not go into all these allegations because in our view the complaint is barred by limitation and also the principle of res judicata. The consumer Protection Act, 1986 when originally passed did not prescribe any period of limitation for lodging complaints. The District Forum, State Commission as well as National Commission had adopted a period of three years as the prescribed period of limitation in consumer disputes, starting from the date of cause of action. This rule of limitation devised by the Consumer Courts was approved by the Supreme Court and was consistently followed. On 18.6.1993 by amendment Act, 1986 by which period of limitation has been specifically proved:
"24A(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the dat on which the cause of action has arisen".
4. We are not referring to Clause (2) of Section 24A because it is not necessary for us for the purpose of this case.
5. if the period of limitation is restricted to two years, the present Original Petition is hopelessly barred by time The Complainant was under Treatment of Dr. P.L. Tiwari from 29.1.86 to 8.5.86 and Dr. Jamnadas C. Patel from 1986 to 1993. The Complainant should have brought this complaint within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose i.e. within two years from the last prescription given by Dr.P.L. Tiwari which was 8.5.1986. Dr. Patel's last prescription is dated 4.11.92.
6. Complainant thereafter has taken all sorts of medicines including treatment from a New York Hospital. The complaint was ultimately filed in January 2000. There is no explanation for this long delay in bringing this complaint. The contention of the complainant is that before amendment came in i.e. before the introduction of Section 24A there was no period of limitation. Section 24A cannot affect cases where cause of action arose long before 18.6.93 on which date Section 24A was inserted in the act by an amendment. It has been contended that the existing rights cannot be affected by the amendment.
7. We are unable to agree with this contention. There is nothing in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby the operation of Section 24A was restricted to a cause of action arising on or after 18.6.1993. According to the Complainant there is no period of limitation in cases where cause of action arose before 18.6.1993 but the cause of action arising after 18.6.93 will be subjected to the period of limitation of two years as prescribed by Section 24A. Such construction will create an absurd situation and must be avoided.
8. Moreover, it must be presumed that the legislature was aware of the interpretation of the Act made by the Courts when Section 24A was introduced in the Act. A period of limitation of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose was fixed by the Consumer Courts for entertaining the complaints. The amendment was made to further restrict the period of limitation to two years. There is no reason to assume that this restriction will not apply to a case where the cause of action arose before 18.6.93.
9. This complaint has ben lodged well beyond the period of three years from the date when the cause of action arose and every beyond two years from 18.6.93 when Section 24A was inserted in the Act.
10. Moreover, after dismissal of the complaint petition by the State Commission, the Complainant could have appealed against the order of the State Commission. The Complainant did not do so. The Complainant cannot bring a fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the National Commission merely by raising the quantum of the claim. For all these reasons this complaint is dismissed.