State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. P.K. Reddy, ] C/O Apollo Hospitals, ] ... vs . Mr. K.R. Desinguraja, ] S/O Mr. ... on 30 January, 2014
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Hon'ble Justice Thiru R. Regupathi PRESIDENT Thiru J. Jayaram, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated this the 30th day of JANUARY, 2014 R.P No. 26 / 2012 Dr. P.K. Reddy, ] C/o Apollo Hospitals, ] No.21, Greams Lane, ] Off Greams Road, ] Petitioner / Petitioner / Chennai 600 006 ] 2nd Opposite Party Vs
1. Mr. K.R. Desinguraja, ] S/o Mr. Ramaswami Raja, ] No.225, Shankarankovil Road, ] Rajapalayam Town, ] 1st Respondent/ 1st Respondent/ Virudhunagar District ] Complainant ]
2. Apollo Hospitals, ] Represented by its ] Chairman Mr. P.C. Reddy, ] No.21, Greams Lane, ] 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/ Chennai 600 006 ] 1st Opposite Party ]
3. Dr. N. Sathyabhama, ] Medical Service Centre, ] C/o Apollo Hospitals, ] No.21, Greams Lane, ] Off Greams Road, ] Chennai 600 006 ] 3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent/ 3rd Opposite Party Counsel for Petitioner/Petitioner/:
Mr. C. Manisankar 2nd Opposite Party Counsel for 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/: Party in person Complainant:
Counsel for 2nd Respondent / 2nd Respondent: ] 1st Opposite Party ] Mr. C. Manisankar Counsel for 3rd Respondent / 3rd Respondent/ ] for R2 & R3.
3rd Opposite Party ] R.P No. 27 / 2012
1. Apollo Hospitals, ] Represented by its ] Chairman Mr. P.C. Reddy, ] No.21, Greams Lane, ] Chennai 600 006 ] ]
2. Dr. N. Sathyabhama, ] Medical Service Centre, ] C/o Apollo Hospitals, ] No.21, Greams Lane, ] Off Greams Road, ] Petitioners / Petitioners / Chennai 600 006 ] Opposite Parties 1&3 Vs.
1. Mr. K.R. Desinguraja, ] S/o Mr. Ramaswami Raja, ] No.225, Shankarankovil Road, ] Rajapalayam Town, ] 1st Respondent/ 1st Respondent/ Virudhunagar District ] Complainant
2. Dr. P.K. Reddy, ] C/o Apollo Hospitals, ] No.21, Greams Lane, ] Off Greams Road, ] 2nd Respondent/ 2nd Respondent Chennai 600 006 ] 2nd Opposite Party Counsel for Petitioners/Petitioners/:
Mr. C. Manisankar Opposite Parties 1&3 Counsel for 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/:
Party in person Complainant:
Counsel for 2nd Respondent / 2nd Respondent: ] 2nd Opposite Party ] Mr. C. Manisankar These two Revision Petitions coming before us for final hearing on 20.12.2013 and on hearing the arguments of petitioners counsel and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the Common Order:
These two Revision Petitions pertain to the same issue arising in the same complaint viz. C.C. No.241 / 2010 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai [South], dated 3-1-2012 and hence Common Order is passed.
R.P. 26 / 2012 is filed by the 2nd opposite party against the order in C.M.P. No.444 / 2010, and R.P. No. 27 / 2012 is filed by the opposite parties 1 and 3 against the order in CMP No. 537 / 2010, of the District Forum dismissing the petitions seeking dismissal of the complaint as barred by limitation.
J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER The complainant has filed a complaint in C.C. No.241 / 2010, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [South] claiming compensation for the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 who are the revision petitioners before us, in performing the surgery for Hernia and in the medical management of the complainant.
2. During the pendency of the complaint, the opposite parties have filed the petitions CMP No.444/2010 and CMP No.537/2010 seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation; and both the petitions were dismissed by the District Forum, Chennai [South] holding that the complaint is filed within time and is not barred by limitation as contemplated under Sec 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act.
3. The contention of the opposite parties / revision petitioners would be that the complainant got admitted in their hospital on 20-5-2004 and he underwent surgery for Hernia and was discharged on 22-5-2004, and therefore the complainant ought to have been filed within the statutory period of two years from the date of discharge / cause of action i.e. on or before 21-5-2006 but the complaint has been filed by the complainant on 3-4-2008, far beyond the statutory period and hence the complaint is not maintainable and has to be dismissed.
4. Per contra, the contention of the complainant / respondent is that though he was discharged on 22-5-2004 he was continuously suffering from severe pain and discomfort and he was not relieved of the problem viz. Hernia and so he went to the opposite party hospital again on 23-8-2005 for Checkup and treatment and found that he was suffering from Left Recurrent Inguinal Hernia and he was advised to do surgical repair for Hernia and again he had a Master Health Checkup in the opposite party hospital on 2-8-2006 and Hernia was confirmed and he was advised to undergo further surgery for Left Inguinal Hernia. These would go to show that he had not recovered from the problem of Hernia and that he was continuously suffering from the same problem. In pursuance of this, on 4-8-2006 he sent a letter to the opposite parties informing them that he was suffering from the same problem even after surgery, which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on their part and claiming compensation.
5. The 3rd opposite party sent a reply dated 16-8-2006 admitting and confirming that the problem of the complainant continued and offering concession to the extent of Rs.10,000/- which would be allowed in the ensuing surgery.
6. It is pertinent to note that the complainant was discharged from the hospital on 22-5-2004 but he did not have proper relief from the problem and he continued to suffer from swelling of Hernia and pain for which he was advised by the opposite parties to undergo further surgery when he had checkup on 2-8-2006 and so he sent a notice on 4-8-2006 and he received a reply from the opposite parties on 16-8-2006 and obviously it has been a continuing problem for the complainant and so there has been continuous cause of action and hence 16-8-2006 is deemed to be the final date of accrual of cause of action and therefore the complaint should have been filed on or before 15-8-2008 within the statutory period of two years from the date of cause of action, whereas the complaint has been filed before the District Forum on 3-4-2008 itself which is well within the period of limitation and therefore we hold that the complaint is filed in time and that the complaint can be entertained and that the complaint is maintainable.
7. The counsel for the revision petitioners cited a number of decisions of Honble Supreme Court and Honble National Commission on the point of bar of limitation as contemplated under Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act. The ratios of the above decisions, are general in nature and do not have specific application to the facts of the instant case before us. Therefore, the decisions are not reproduced here.
8. The District Forum has come to the right conclusion that the complaint is filed within time and the complaint is not barred by limitation.
9. We agree with the decision of the District Forum dismissing the petitions and accordingly the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, R.P. No.26 / 2012 and R.P. No.27 / 2012 are dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing CMP No.444/2010 and CMP No.537/2010, dated 3-1-2012. No order as to costs.
(J. JAYARAM) (R. REGUPATHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT