IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Forum cannot outrightly reject medical prescriptions.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the impugned order dated 06.03.2012 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in M.A. No. MA/09/596 in Appeal No. A/09/547 – Sachin Rameshrao Randive Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. by which, application for condonation of delay of 70 days was dismissed. Consequently, appeal was also dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District Forum against OP/respondent, which was dismissed by District Forum vide order dated 4.4.2009. Petitioner filed appeal against order of the District Forum along with application for condonation of delay of 70 days and State Commission vide impugned order while rejecting application for condonation of delay, dismissed appeal being time barred.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner explained delay in filing appeal, but learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal; so, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission for disposal on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5. Perusal of record reveals that learned State Commission dismissed application for condonation of delay of 70 days on two counts, namely; no explanation was given by the petitioner as to why he was residing at village Kavathala, whereas in complaint he had given address of Ballarpur and secondly, petitioner was neither admitted in any hospital during the relevant period, nor prescription chit was produced on record.

6. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner submitted before learned State Commission in application for condonation of delay that petitioner was running his business in village Kavathala, Taluka Gadchandur, District Chandrapur. No doubt, petitioner mentioned address of Ballarpur, District Chandrapur in his complaint, but while residing at Ballarpur, he can carry on his business at village Kavathala, which is also in the same District Chandrapur. Merely because petitioner failed to give any explanation about his residence at village Kavathala, application for condonation of delay ought not to have been dismissed by learned State Commission.

7. As far other documents in support of medical certificate, petitioner has appended prescription dated 22.5.2009 given by same Dr. Vinod D. Nagrale, who has issued medical certificate for two months and twelve days. In such circumstances, it appears that learned State Commission has inadvertently mentioned that prescription chit was not produced on record, which was very much on record. Merely because petitioner was not admitted in the hospital, medical certificate issued by Dr. Nagrale cannot be brushed aside and learned State Commission ought to have condoned delay of 70 days in filing appeal.

8. Consequently, revision petition is allowed and order dated 6.3.2012 by passed by learned State Commission dismissing M.A. No. MA/09/596 in Appeal No. A/09/547 is set aside and M.A. No. MA/09/596 is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to be deposited in the Legal-aid Account of the State Commission, Maharashtra and consequently, order dismissing appeal No. A/09/957 is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission, Maharashtra to decide it on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission, Maharashtra on 15th July, 2013. A copy of this order be sent to the State Commission, Maharashtra.

Revision petition allowed and matter remanded back to Stat