State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Vikram Kumar vs Arpit Tandon on 27 May, 2024
RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 07.07.2023
Date of Hearing: 19.01.2024
Date of Decision: 27.05.2024
REVISION PETITION NO.-45/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
1. DR. VIKRAM KUMAR,
Cosmetic Surgeon,
48, Cowley Brown Road,
R.S. Puram, Coimbatore- 641002, (TN).
2. SRI BALAJI NURSING HOME,
48, Cowley Brown Road,
R.S. Puram, Coimbatore- 641002, (TN).
3. NOVA COSMETIC SURGERY CENTRE,
48, Cowley Brown Road,
R.S. Puram, Coimbatore- 641002, (TN).
4. DR. VIJAYANTHI RAJA,
Gynecologist, Sri Balaji Nursing Home,
48, Cowley Brown Road,
R.S. Puram, Coimbatore- 641002, (TN).
(Through: Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate)
...Revisionists
VERSUS
1. MR. ARPIT TANDON,
S/o Shri L. K. Tandon,
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 16
RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024
Working At: Central Revenue Building,
I.P. Estate, ITO, New Delhi-110002.
(Through: Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate)
2. DR. S. RAJA SABAPATHY,
Director, Ganga Hospital,
Ganga Medical Centre & Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.,
313, Mettupalayam Road, Saibaba Kovil,
Coimbatore-641043, (TN).
3. GANGA HOSPITAL,
GANGA MEDICAL CENTRE & HOSPITALS PVT. LTD.,
Through: Dr. Ishwar Balaji,
313, Mettupalayam Road, Saibaba Kovil,
Coimbatore-641043, (TN).
4. DR. RAJA SHANMUGA KRISHNAN,
PLASTIC SURGEON, GANGA HOSPITAL,
Ganga Medical Centre & Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.,
313, Mettupalayam Road, Saibaba Kovil,
Coimbatore-641043, (TN).
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, counsel for the Revisionists.
Mr. Sachin Jain, counsel for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Gautam Khazanchi along with Ms. Suruchi Jaiswal,
Counsel for the Respondent no. 2 to 4.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 16
RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024
ORDER
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
"1. (Introduction) - On 06.01.2023, the complainant filed the complaint dated 5.1.2023 against OPI to OP7 for allegations of medical negligence, deficiency in services and he has sought refund of Rs. 21,00,000/- spent on medical treatment. compensation of Rs. 3 crore, cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- apart from other directions. The complaint is accompanying with application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act read with 69(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, explaining in brief the features and other circumstances of the case to condone the delay of 219 days. Notice on this application was issued to all the OPs to hear them and consequent to service of notice on application to OP's, they filed their respective reply and each of them opposed the application. They were also provided copy of complaint and documents filed.
2.Briefly it needs to introduce about the parties. The complainant Sh. Arpit Tandon is working as Senior Tax Assistant at Central Revenue Building 1.P Estate, New Delhi. He had consulted and got treatment from OPs. OPI (Dr. Vikram Kumar) is the Cosmetic Surgeon and founder of OP2 (Sh. Balaji Nursing Home). OP3 (Nova Surgery Centre), is a Cosmetic Surgery Centre in Coimbatore, it is a unit of OP-2. OP4 (Dr. Vijayanthi Raja), is a Gynaecologist, who is practicing in OP2; she is mother of OPI.
OP5 (Dr. S. Raja Sabapathy), is a Plastic Surgeon, he is owner and Director of OP6 (Ganga Hospital), Ganga Medical Centre & Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. OP7 (Dr. Raja Shanmuga Krishnan) also Plastic Surgeon, is practicing in OP6 and he is son of OP5.
3.1. (Plea of applicant/complainant). It does not require to reproduce all the facts and features of complaint, the relevant facts, dates and other material will be referred and discussed from the point of deciding the application under consideration.
DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024
Succinctly, the complainant had taken consultation on 21.12.2018 at OP3, he was asked to consult OPI and consequently he consulted them. On 26.08.2019 appropriate consent forms were got signed, certain investigation were carried and date for surgery was fixed for 03.09.2019 since he was declared fit candidate for Gynecomastia surgery. The application describes the different phases from 07.09.2019 onward qua OPI to OP7 as to how he had faced different situations and complications; since he was operated on 07.09.2019 by OP1 at OP3 and he was to shift at OP6 hospital on 08.09.2019, he was discharged on 14.11.2019. He further describes that although, he was discharged on 14.11.2019 by OP6 hospital but the misery, depression, trauma, threat to his life and health is ongoing, subsisting and continuing and life-long treatment is required for which huge amount of funds are also needed, which are beyond the reach of the complainant. After discharge of complainant, he had many medical reviews with OPS who had promised to intervene and prevail upon OP) with regard to paying for treatment expenses, which was suffered by complainant due to negligence of OPs. The proposition before the complainant and his family was to save the life of complainant, they could not comprehend about their legal rights, since pandemic affected the complainant adversely, he being very low in immunity and in traumatized mental state. 3.2 The limitation period for present complaint had expired on 14.11.2021, even though the cause of action is continuing but due to outbreak of pandemic as well as in view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 in para 4 (iii) the limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 was granted, which expired on 31.05.2022.
3.3 The complainant's posting was transferred from Coimbatore to Delhi in May 2022, it also took time for the complainant to acclimatize to the weather and other condition of Delhi. The complainant could receive medical DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 records with other papers and photographs only in the end of 2021 from OPs that too after great persuasion. He had to seek legal advice to approach this Commission by filing complaint and to prepare him for legal battle, besides daily physical and mental pain, depression and trauma; it took time, which caused delay of 219 days.
3.4 However, delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but bona-fide due to unusual circumstances and in case the delay is not condoned, the complainant will suffer irreparably and he will not be able to get further treatment for his severe condition."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 31.05.2023, whereby it held as under:
"9.1 Since, both the parties are referring order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo-Motu Writ Petition no. 3/2020, therefore, it is necessary and also appropriate to reproduce the operating part of paragraph 5 thereof, which reads as follows:-
"1. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases, where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 In the event the actual balance DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal condone delay) and termination of proceedings."
9.2. The present newly appointed Collapse fees complainant requests that there is an omission bona fide by oversight that in paragraph 10 of the application, sub paragraph (1) of Order dated 10.1.2022 was partly invoked by computing period of 90 days from 01.03.2022, which expires on 31.05.2022, however, in the present case the limitation period is much more as balance period left was much more beyond 90 days. The appropriate calculation is to be invoked so that proper limitation period is computed. When there is bona-fide omission and Order was misconceived, it would not forfeit the rights of the complainant provided by law declared in directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The complaint period of limitation from date of discharge of 14.11.2019 as beginning date of cause of action, and for computing two year period, the date 14.11.2021 was mentioned as end of two year, whereas the cause of action is still subsisting. On plain pleading of Clause (1), the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is to be excluded for computing the period of limitation (out of period of 14.11.2019 to 14.11.2021) and it leaves balance period for the complainant to be computed after 01.03.2022 and complainant has time up-to 31.10.2023 to file the complaint, from these calculation, the complaint filed on 06.01.2023 is within the period of limitation. Ld. DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 Counsel for complainant fortifies his contention while relying upon Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited vs. Manpreet Developers Private Limited CP (IB) No.700/MB-IV/2022 dod 11.01.2023 by NCLT, wherein the law laid down in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 was invoked by similar calculations. The complaint is within time, thus, complaint filed on 06.01.2023 is to be treated as filed within limitation period, which is available up- to October 2023.
9.3. Whereas Ld. Counsel for OP1 and OP3 has reservations that the complainant himself admitted that the complaint is barred by time prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the limitation period for filing complaint had expired on 13.11.2021. He has also relied upon Suo-Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, its paragraph (III), it was also interpreted that after 28.02.2022, complainant had period of 90 days w.e.f. 01.03.2022 for filing the complaint, which was upto 30.05.2022 that interpretation was properly done and on that basis the complainant has sought condonation of delay of 219 days. However, delay has not been explained sufficiently.
Moreover, the admission of time barred complaint and the plea taken by complainant in the application have accrued and vested rights in favour of OPs that the complaint is barred by time, it cannot be taken away. Law of limitation is a substantive law, it is to be followed strictly in all the circumstances. Now the complainant is shifting his stand in the oral submissions contrary to what was stated in the application, it is not permissible. The complaint is barred by time as it is beyond the statutory period provided and waiver/extension of time provided under clause (III) also expires on 30.05.2022, which complainant also conceded. The complainant refers Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited case (supra). however, it is not applicable since it pertains to commercial laws under clause (IV) of para 5 of the DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 Order/directions 10.1.2022. The application is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.
9.4. Ld counsel for OP2 and OP4 reiterated the submissions as reflected in paragraph no.6 above, that no justifiable reasons have been given for long delay in bring the complainant, it is hopelessly barred by time. Moreover, the oral plea on behalf of complainant, which is contrary to written plea in application, cannot be considered being hit by principle of estoppel, after complainant declaration in paragraph no. 10 of the application.
9.5 Ld. Counsel for OP5, OP6 and OP7 submits that since his turn came after the submissions of other counsels, without repeating the submissions made on behalf of other OPs, he has identical submission on the point of complaint barred by time as no sufficient reason has been explained nor it is supported by any sufficient material to condone the delay. There are just bald allegations, however, the same are not supported by any convincing and plausible record apart from explanation to day to day delay. Lastly the complainant has computed delay of 219 days but in fact it is admitted case of complainant that limitation period expires on 14.11.2021. consequently there is delay of 417 days; the complainant cannot be permitted to take advantage of relaxation granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court to bona fide litigants. There is basically three plea viz (1) mentally traumatize, (ii) acclimatize with the changed climate and (iii) seeking legal advises, however, none of such plea is supported by any record to be believed. The application deserves dismissal.
10.1 (Findings on the point of computation of limitation period and number of days of delay): The contentions are considered and both the sides have invoked law laid down in Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) no. 3 of 2020, which has already been reproduced in paragraph no. 9.1 above. It is fact that the complainant in his application, under consideration, in para no. 10 has invoked clause no. (III) DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 that limitation period is to be computed by treating that it had expired on 14.11.2021 and consequently 90 days period was available with effect from 01.03.2022 but it expired on 30.05.2022 and accordingly the complaint construed that complaint is barred by time and condonation of delay of 219 days was sought. The period of 219 days is between 31.5.2022 to 05.01.2023.
Whereas Ld. Counsel for OPI and OP3 has vehemently opposed it that th right accrued in favour of OP1 and OP3 cannot be taken away by shifting plea b the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP4 and OP2 have similar submissions the principle of estopple applies on this count, the complaint is barred by time as admitted by the complainant himself. However, during oral submission, contrary view being taken is to prejudice the right accrued in favour of OP4 and OP2. The contentions of OPS, OP6 and OP7 were that period of delay is 417 days and not 219 days.
10.2.1. There is occasion to go through the provision of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 apart from the law declared in Order dated 10.01.2022 by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P. (C) 3/2020. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 depicts that subject to other provisions of Act, if suit, appeal or application is made after prescribed period, the suit shall be dismissed, despite limitation has been set-up defence. There is also no contrary provision of in the Limitation Act that a party may abandon or shrink the limitation period but to the contrary there is provisions for extension of time as well as exclusion of limitation period under certain situations. In the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, section 69 prescribes period of two years for filing complaint, with its proviso to entertain the complaint, after prescribed period, however, there is no provision that a party may abandon or shrink the limitation period.
DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024
The directions given in order dated 10.01.2022 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, are effective 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 and then till 28.2.2022 and directions given were to either for extension of time till further order or exclusion of certain period, while computing the period of limitation. Therefore, when the Jaw guarantees the right of limitation, it cannot be abandoned or put to shrink, therefore, the principle of estopple will not apply. In case complainant has calculated/or miscalculated the period by perceiving the clause (III) of paragraph S of order dated 10.01.2022, it does not make out case of estoppel. 10.2.2. The OPI and OP3 contends that although there is no cause of action against OPS, however, otherwise for the purposes of limitation, the date of 07.09.2019 is to be considered, which establishes that complaint is barred by time. However, the complainant pleaded 14.11.2019, the date of discharge, as date for computing the period. There is no dispute of date of surgery on 07.09.2011. But there are other circumstances after discharge, being prima facie, when OPI was approached through OPS who had promised to intervene and prevail upon OPI with regard to paying for treatment expenses, 10.3. The complainant concedes that either because of omission or inadvertence that first part of clause (III) was read that when limitation period expires between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, the balance period of 90 days was read and calculated. It was also contended that by invoking exclusion clause of period from 15.3.2020 to 28.02.2022, the complainant had balance period.
Is it so? Now question arises whether any balance period was/is available with the complainant? It will be determinant for invoking the appropriate clause. 10.4 By reading previous directions, especially Order dated 23.09.2021 in WP (C) no. 3/2020, it excludes period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 and the balance period remaining as on 15.3.2021 shall be available from 03.10.2021. Further in case the limitation period expires DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, the balance period will be available from 03.10.2021.
As per Order dated 10.01.2022, the exclusion period w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 28.02 2022. However, if any balance period of limitation was available as on 3.10.2022, it will be available w.e.f. 01.03.2022. In case limitation period has expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, then limitation period of 90 days will be available w.e.f. 01.03.2022 to all person irrespective of actual balance period of limitation. However, in the event the balance limitation period is greater than 90 days w.e.f. 01.03.2022, then such longer period shall apply.
Thus, question arises as to whether any balance period of limitation was available with the complainant prior to 15.03.2020 and also on 02.10.2021. For that purposes the record is to seen and referred.
Prima facie, the complainant was discharged on 14.11.2019 Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the limitation period is of two years (24 months) and the complaint could be filed within two years/up-to 13.11.2021. However, the directions came with effect from 15.03.2020. The period between 14.11.2019 (date of discharge) to 14.03.2020 (immediately a day before 15.3.2020 effective date of order) was of 04 months, meaning thereby, the complainant was left with balance period of 20 months as on 15.03.2020 (out of 24 months), but it would be available after 02.10.2021 or w.e.f. 03.10.2021. Whereas further directions came by order dated 10.01.2022, in clause no. (1) that order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 stands excluded; and as per clause no. (II) the balance period of limitation remaining on 03.10.2021 shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. Therefore, the complainant had balance period of 20 months, it is available with effect from 01.03.2022.
DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024
Further as per clause (III) where limitation expires between 15.03.2020 till 28 02.2022, the balance period of limitation is to be availed in two manners, firstly in all cases it is 90 days from 01.03.2022 (which is up to 29.05.2022) and in other cases when the balance limitation period remains greater than 90 days, in that eventuality the longer period will apply with effect from 01.03.2022. In this case of present complainant, the balance period is of 20 months, which is longer than 90 days and limitation period becomes upto 31.10.2023 by adding 20 months w.e.f 01.03.2022. The complaint was filed on 06.01.2023 by the complainant Therefore, complaint is within the limitation.
10.5 Since, it is held that the complaint is within limitation period in terms of the extension of time as well as exclusion of certain period specified.
But the plea of complainant in application is to condone the delay. Similarly the OPs have also opposed the application on ground of insufficiency of reasons or for want of sufficient reason to exercise the discretion, there is no need to adjudicate these issue on merits, since findings has been given that the complaint is within limitation. Consequently, the plea of parties on such merits and other case laws relied upon by the complainant as well as by the OPs are not being discussed, as not required; however, the case law filed by them is placed on the file. With these observations and in terms of conclusion drawn hereinabove, the application is disposed off.
However, while discussing the case of parties from the point of limitation, any expression or indication came in this order, it will not be construed any opinion on the merits of case/complaint or other application.
11. The complaint stand admitted from the date of its filing. The copies of complaint, documents and application were already provided to the OPs. The OPs are to file the written statement to complaint and reply to application.
DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024
OPs may file the reply in time. It is just a gentle reminder that this Commission will be functioning in June, 2023.
12. List for further proceeding for 19.07.2023."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission the Revisionists/Opposite Party No. 1 to 4 have preferred the present Revision Petition submitting that the District Commission has erroneously concluded that the Complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1 was well within the period of limitation. The counsel for the Revisionists further submitted that the impugned order of the District Commission is based on the wrong interpretation of the Supreme Court order dated 10.01.2022 in "Re: Cognizance for extension of Limitation". Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Revisionists have prayed for setting aside the Impugned order.
4. The Respondent no. 1, on the other hand, has filed the reply to the present Revision Petition, whereby denying all the allegations of the Revisionists and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsels appeared on behalf of both the parties.
6. The main question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission has erred in allowing the application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint before it by incorrectly interpreting the Suo Motu W.P. (c) 3 of 2020 titled as "Re: Cognizance for extension of Limitation Period".
7. On perusal of record, we find that the cause of action in the Complaint case no. 6 of 2023 (filed before District Commission) was arose on 14.11.2019 (being the date of discharge of the Respondent no. 1) and as per Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the District Commission is DISMISSED PAGE 13 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 empowered to entertain a complaint if it is filed within a period of two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. Further, during the subsistence of the period of limitation in the Complaint case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide various order dated 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, 10.07.2020, 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, 23.09.2021 & 10.01.2022, extended the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 due to the restrictions imposed in terms of the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. The relevant portion of the order dated 10.01.2022 is reproduced below for the ready reference herein:
"5. Taking into consideration the arguments advance by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:
I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases, where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29 of the DISMISSED PAGE 14 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal condone delay) and termination of proceedings."
8. From the aforesaid statutory position, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in abovementioned clause (III) of order dated 10.01.2022 expressly observed that where limitation expires between 15.03.2020 till 28 02.2022, the balance period of limitation is to be calculated in two manners, firstly in all cases it is 90 days from 01.03.2022 (which is up to 29.05.2022) and in other cases when the balance limitation period remains more than 90 days, in that eventuality the longer period will apply with effect from 01.03.2022. Therefore, the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court is abundantly clear that the balance days of limitation which were available to a party on 15.03.2020 would become available with effect from 01.03.2022, (the day on which the benefit of the Suo Motu Extension of Limitation period by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ended).
9. In the present case, the Respondent No. 1 was discharged from the hospital on 14.11.2019 as per which, the complaint before the District Commission was to be filed within two years i.e. till 13.11.2021. However, in terms of the W.P. (c) 3 of 2020, the directions for the extension of limitation period came with effect from 15.03.2020. Therefore, the period between 14.11.2019 (date of discharge) till 14.03.2020 (immediately a day before 15.3.2020 effective date of order) was of four months, meaning thereby, the Respondent no. 1 was left with balance period of 20 months as on 15.03.2020 (out of 24 months). Further, in terms of the clause (III) of aforementioned order, the longer period will applicable in the present case, therefore, the limitation period to file the complaint before District DISMISSED PAGE 15 OF 16 RP NO./45/2023 DR. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. MR. ARPIT TANDON D.O.D.: 27.05.2024 Commission was upto 31.10.2023 after adding 20 months w.e.f 01.03.2022. Moreover, in the present case, the Complaint before the District Commission was filed on 06.01.2023 i.e. within the period of limitation in terms of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Suo Motu W.P.
(c) 3 of 2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. Therefore, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any reasons to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central), Delhi.
11. Resultantly, the present Revision Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
12. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
13. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
27.05.2024 DISMISSED PAGE 16 OF 16