IMPORTANT POINT
No relief can be given on a time-barred complaint..

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member—The complainant, Shri Sunil Dev Swami, approached Dr. Balraj-petitioner/OP for his dental problem on 1.1.1995 at Talwar Dental Clinic. The complainant had two twisted central teeth in the upper jaw. The OP performed root canal treatment for all his upper front four teeth and placed a bridge i.e. caps for front four teeth. During the course of treatment, he starting grinding the lower six teeth, it was done for the purpose of better alignment of bridge. Thereafter, the complainant started suffering sensitivity in the lower six teeth, therefore he could not eat hot or cold food. He further alleged that he started foul breath and food accumulation between teeth. He approached the OP again on 23.12.1998 but there was no avail. Thereafter, on 11.3.2005, he approached D.A.V. Dental College, Yamuna Nagar for the further treatment. The doctors there told that, the OP, who was not qualified to practice as dental surgeon, had damaged his teeth due to faulty treatment. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar.

2. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the complainant preferred first appeal before the State Commission. The first appeal was allowed by State Commission and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- as costs.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, both the parties approached this commission through cross Revision Petitions i.e. RP No. 663 of 2012 filed by Dr. Balraj Talwar/OP for dismissal of complaint , whereas RP No. 3119 of 2012 filed by the complainant/ Sunil Devi Swami for enhancement of compensation.

4. We have heard counsel for both the parties. The learned Counsel for OP challenged the maintainability of the complaint because the complaint was filed after the period of limitation.

5. To decide the point of limitation, we have perused the impugned orders of State Commission and District Forum. The both the fora held that the complainant took last treatment from OP on 14.9.2003 and the complaint was filed on 13.9.2005. Therefore, the complaint filed was within the limitation period of two years. Upon bare perusal of complaint and his evidence, he himself narrated the sequences of events and treatment details. He has mentioned that he approached the OP for dental problem on 1.1.1995. Thereafter, the OP performed root canal treatment for the upper front teeth and advised for bridge. Complainant alleged that, due to excessive grinding of lower six teeth, he had suffered sensitivity in his lower six teeth. Therefore, he approached the OP once again on 23.12.1998. Thus, in our view, the cause of action itself was arisen in the year 1995. It is pertinent to note that, 2nd time complainant approached OP again on 23.12.1998, thus the cause of action again arose from 23.12.1998. Thus, complaint would have filed within two years from 1998. It is not acceptable to us that, the complainant continuously suffered dental problem after 1998. It is pertinent to note that, complainant approached OP on 14.9.2003, i.e. almost after 5 years, with the symptoms of gap between his right upper canine tooth and widening of bridge. After that, he finally had gone to D.A.V. Dental College on 11.3.2005. Therefore, in our view, it was not a continuous cause of action.

6. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly defines limitation period. It is reproduced as under:

Section 24A in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

24A. Limitation period.—

(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commissi