IMPORTANT POINT
Where there was omission or lapse on part of opposite party in furnishing medical and treatment record, delay of one year in filing complaint alleging medical negligence was liable to be condoned.

M.V. Viswanathan, Judicial Member—This revision petition is preferred by the opposite parties in OP. 220/04 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod. The complaint in the said OP. 220/04 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant demanding compensation on the ground of medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Since, there was delay of 1 year in preferring the complaint, the complaints filed a petition as IA. 167/04 under Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, to get the delay condoned. The lower forum allowed the said petition and thereby condoned the delay of one year in preferring the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the lower forum, the present revision is preferred.

2. When this revision petition was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the respondents/complainants. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners (opposite parties) submitted his arguments based on the ground, urged in the Revision Petition and submitted that there was no sufficient reasonable ground to condone the delay of one year. Thus, the revision petitioners requested to set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.04 passed by the forum below IA.167/04.

3. The point that arise for consideration is:

1. Whether the Forum below can be justified in condoning the delay of one year in preferring the complaint in OP. 220/04?

The Point.

4. There is no dispute that the complaint in OP.220/04 was filed with a delay of one year. The reasons stated for the said delay in preferring the complaint is that the opposite parties failed to furnish copies of the medical records and treatment records. It is an admitted fact that the complainants issued lawyer notice as early as in the year 2001 demanding copies of the medical records with respect to the treatment of the deceased Jayasree, who was admitted in the opposite party hospital namely, Geetha Nursing home. It is to be noted that the complainants issued lawyer notice even in the year 2002 requesting the opposite parties to furnish the medical records. Admittedly, the opposite parties to furnish the medical/treatment records. Admittedly, the opposite parties failed to furnish the medical records. It is further to be noted that in the reply dated. 3.6.04 the third opposite party, the Chief Medical Officer, Geetha Nursing home requested for time to furnish the medical records. Thereby, the opposite parties furnish the medical records only in the month of June 2004. On getting the medical records, the complainants preferred the complaint on the very next month July 2004. The facts and circumstances would give a clear indication that there was omission or lapse on the part of the opposite parties in furnishing the medical and treatment records. So, the reason stated by the complainants for the delay of one year can be treated as genuine and sustainable one. The forum below has rightly relied on the decision reported in 2004 (2) KLT 1571 and allowed the petition filed under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. This Commission is of the view that the forum below has considered all the details of the matter involved in this case and rightly condoned the delay in preferring the complaint in OP. 220/04. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated. 13.12.04 passed by the forum below. So, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. The above point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated. 13.12.04 passed by the forum below in IA.167/04 in OP. 220/04 is confirmed.

Revision dismissed.

*******