National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Command Hospital(Southern Command) & 2 ... vs Sachin Satish Chandra Dubey & 2 Ors. on 15 October, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 17/11/2013 in Complaint No. 985/2016 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. COMMAND HOSPITAL(SOUTHERN COMMAND) & 2 ORS. THROUGH LT. GEN A.K. NAGPAL (DIRECTOR), COMMAND HOSPITAL (SC)ARMED FORCES MEDICAL COLLEGAGE, WANWORIE, PUNE-411040 2. DR. R SARANGA BHARATHI, LT. COL. CL. SPL., COMMAND HOSPITAL (SC), ARMED FORCES MEDICAL COLLEGE, WANWORIE, PUNE-411040 3. DR. RAVOKANT NAYAR, MAJOR, CLINICAL TUTOR,
COMMAND HOSPITAL (SC), ARMED FORCES MEDICAL COLLEGE, WANWORIE, PUNE-411040 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SACHIN SATISH CHANDRA DUBEY & 2 ORS. BENDE MALA, M.G. COLLEGE ROAD, MANCHAR TAL-GHODEGAON, DISTRICT-PUNE-41503 2. MASTER DAKSHOURYA SACHIN DUBEY BENDE MALA, M.G. COLLEGE ROAD, MANCHAR TAL-GHODEGAON, DISTT-PUNE-41503 3. SMT. SUSHILA GULABRAO BENDE BENDE MALA, M.G. COLLEGE ROAD, MANCHAR TAL-GHODEGAON, DISTT-PUNE-41503 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. P. S. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Satishchandra Dubey,
(complainant no. 1 in person)
Dated : 15 Oct 2019 ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent no. 1- complainant no. 1 in person, and perused the record.
2. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 17.11.2017 had not taken the written version of the opposite parties on record since the same had been filed beyond the statutory period of 30 days and extended period of 15 days thence (i.e. beyond total 45 days):
Dated : 17/11/2017
ORDER
Advocate Shri. Milind Salunkhe is present for the complainant. Filed evidence affidavit. Taken on record. Subhedar Mohan Kumar has submitted adjournment application seeking time as Advocate on record for the opponent is not feeling well. The opponent had sent written version by post which was received in office on 11/7/2017. However, that cannot be considered as notice was served on opponent on 7/1/2017. Written version is not within 45 days from the date of service of notice. Hence, written version cannot be considered. Adjourn for final hearing. Advocates for both the parties are directed to submit brief notes of written argument two days prior to the date of final hearing. Adjourn to 12/3/2018.
3. The instant appeal has been filed before this Commission with self-admitted delay of 408 days.
4. The stated reasons for delay in filing the appeal, as mentioned in paras 2 to 9 of the application for condonation of delay, are as below:
2. That the certified copy of the impugned order dated 17.11.2017 was received by the petitioner on 31 Aug 2018.
3. That there is a delay of 408 days in filing the first appeal against the impugned order dated 17.11.2017.
4. That the petitioners sought legal opinion from standing Govt. Counsel whether to assail the impugned order or not and whether to proceed with the order of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Legal opinion of the Standing Govt. Counsel was received by the petitioners vide a letter dated 30.08.2018.
5. That all the documents pertaining to the present case were forwarded by the Petitioners No. 1 Command Hospital (Southern Command) to the office of DGMS (Army) by courier for filing an appeal against the order dated 17.11.2017 before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Further, the documents were forwarded to HQ MG & G Area (Legal) to obtain opinion of Ministry of Law & Justice, Mumbai vide letter dated 24.11.2018 by the DGMS (Army).
6. That legal opinion of Ministry of Law & Justice, Mumbai was received by the HQ MG & G (Legal) vide letter dated 05.12.2018 and thereafter all the documents along with the legal opinion of the Ministry of Law and Justice was forwarded to the office of DGMS- 3(D) Legal vide letter dated 08.12.2018 for filing an appeal before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
7. That the department forwarded documents to the Officer-in-Charge Litigation Branch, Delhi High Court for engaging a Senior Govt. Counsel for filing an appeal against the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench Pune in Complaint No. 15/CC/16/985 titled as ' Sachin Satischandra Dubey vs. Command Hospital (Southern Command) & Ors.'
8. That the Govt. Senior panel counsel requested the concerned department to make him available the entire requisite papers/documents which were essential for the purpose of filing the revision petition and as such this took some time.
9. That there is a delay of 408 days in filing first appeal which occurred only due to the administrative procedures and is neither intentional not deliberate.
(paras 2,3, 4,5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the application for condonation of delay)
5. We find that the stated reasons for delay, as reproduced, in toto, in para 4 above, point towards managerial inefficiency and perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, they are illogical and incongruous in explaining convincingly and cogently the delay in filing the appeal before this Commission.
6. Sufficient cause to explain the delay in filing the appeal is not visible.
7. The Act 1986 is to provide "speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes" (Statement of Objects and Reasons). The normative ideal period for disposing of an appeal is 90 days (section 19A). The period of limitation to file appeal is 30 days (section 19). The appeal has been filed with (further) delay of 408 days.
8. We note that this is a case of alleged medical negligence / deficiency in service, which resulted in the death of the patient.
9. On perusal of the complaint, and without prejudging the case, and without in any manner entering into or critiquing the merits of the case, we, but, find, prima facie, allegations containing ingredients of medical negligence / deficiency in service inherent in the complaint.
10. We are of the view that the case before the forum of original jurisdiction ( i.e. the State Commission), should, as far as (lawfully) feasible, be comprehensively and holistically examined on merit, with the affording of the due opportunity to both sides, and should also be speedily disposed of, without unwarranted and unnecessary impediments.
11. In the interest of justice, and for holistic adjudication of the case on merit in the forum of original jurisdiction, we deem it appropriate to:
[a] condone the delay in filing the appeal, subject to just and appropriate cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the respondent no. 1 - complainant no. 1 by the opposite party no. 1 (hospital) and Rs. 5,000/- each by the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 (doctors) through 'payee's a/c only' demand drafts directly in his favour within four weeks from today.
[b] direct that the written version of the opposite parties be taken on record, subject to suitable/just terms/cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the respondent no. 1 - complainant no. 1 by the opposite party no. 1 (hospital) and Rs. 5,000/- each by the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 (doctors) through 'payee's a/c only' demand drafts directly in his favour within four weeks from today.
12. The appellants - opposite parties are sternly advised to conduct their case professionally before the State Commission.
13. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 10.12.2019.
14. The State Commission is directed to proceed further with the adjudication of the case on merit, with the affording of the due opportunity to both sides.
15. A copy of this Order be sent to the State Commission by the Registry within seven days.
'Dasti', in addition, to both sides.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DINESH SINGH MEMBER