IMPORTANT POINT
Sufficient cause for condoning delay in each case is a question of fact.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Being aggrieved by order dated 29.3.2012, passed by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short, ‘State Commission’) petitioner/complainant has filed this revision petition.

2. Brief facts are that on 29.5.2007 petitioner feeling weakness and fever went for check-up at respondent no.1/OP-1 hospital. After check up by respondent no.2/OP-2, he was sent to pathology lab for blood group test. Reasons for fever and weakness was stated to be deficiency of haemoglobin by respondent no.2 and petitioner was advised blood transfusion. After transfusion of the blood, petitioner was discharged from the hospital. Later on, he complained about weakness and went to another hospital. There petitioner was found that both his kidneys have been damaged and he had undergone dialysis. Due to negligence and wrong blood transfusion, his kidney got damaged and he got the kidney transplanted. Accordingly, petitioner filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ujjain (for short, ‘District Forum’) claiming compensation of Rs.16,30,000/- with 18% interest.

3. District Forum allowed the complaint of the petitioner, vide order dated 14.5.2008.

4. Being aggrieved, respondents filed appeal before the State Commission which accepted the same and set aside the order of District Forum, observing as under;

“On the basis of foregoing discussions we come to the conclusion that on 29.5.2007 when the respondent first time went to the appellants for treatment, then he was suffering from chronic renal failure, due to which he was referred to Nephrologist after check-up, it is not that his kidney damaged due to wrong blood transfusion. On 27.6.2007 the nephrologist Dr. Pradeep Salgiya diagnosed CKD Stage5.

“According to medical literature positive blood is found is clumping form. Since the blood group of the respondent was found to be blood Group A and clumping form was also found, therefore, Rh factor+ve was concluded.

It is also important to note here that since Hb of the respondent was 5.4 therefore, whole blood was not transfused whereas packed red blood cells was transfused. The respondent did not complain about anything either during transfusion or after transfusion. The report of Nephrologist Dr. Pradeep Salgiya dated 27.6.2007 does not mention anything about any adverse reaction.

Thus in our opinion the appellants do not adopt any negligence during the medical check-up of the respondent therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any relief.

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by District Forum is set aside.”

5. Hence, present revision petition. Alongwith it, an application for condonation of delay of 59 days has also been filed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner on application for condonation of delay and gone through the record.

7. Main ground on which condonation of delay has been sought read as under:

“4. That the Petitioner is a poor carpenter and now is unemployed due to his illness and physical condition which is a consequence of the negligence committed by the Respondents. The Petitioner and his family members have gone through hardship and mental trauma in financing the treatment of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is under continuous medication. The Petitioner could only file the complaint before the District Forum after being harassed from all other avenues. Therefore, the decision of coming for a revision was also taken very late by the Petitioner after arranging fund for the same. The Petitioner craves indulgence of this Hon’ble Commission to condone the delay in filling the accompanying Revision Petition.”

8. It is well settled that “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a special period of limitation has been provided to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. Complaint has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of f