IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Condonation of Delay - Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons which prevented them to come to the Court/Commission within the stipulated period of limitation.
(2) Consumer Court - A consumer court is required to consider preliminary issues/ objections in any matter before it.
(3) Condonation of delay - The party who has not acted diligently or remains inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay.

ORDER

This Order shall decide both the Revision Petitions filed against the Order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal Nos. A/14/23 and A/14/38 respectively.

2. For the convenience, parties are being referred to as placed in the Original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. The case of Complainant that the nurse - Surekha Arun Sankhe (OP-4) negligently administered diclofenac injection to the Complainant’s left arm, damaging the Radial nerve, which led to paralysis of left hand.

4. The District Forum, Thane held the nurse for medical negligence causing injury to the left radial nerve and partly allowed the Complaint. It allowed the Complaint. The OPs (1 to 4) were directed to pay Rs. 10 lakh within three months.

5. Being aggrieved, three separate first appeals were filed before the State Commission as, A/14/23 by the nurse Surekha Arun Sankhe (OP- 4), A/14/38 by the Central Hospital & Dr. Arun Pole ((OP-1& 2) and A/14/108 by Dr. Vilas Dongre (OP-3)-the Orthopedics surgeon. The State Commission disposed the appeals by confirming the award against OP-1 & OP-4. It imposed cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The OPs- 2 and 3 were exonerated.

6. Being aggrieved, the Nurse (OP-4) filed RP No.231 of 2018 & the Central Hospital (OP-1) filed RP No.771 of 2021.

7. Heard the arguments from the parties.

8. There was delay of 1320 days in filing RP No.771 of 2021 (as calculated by the Registry). The learned Counsel for the Petitioner (Central Hospital) submitted that the delay was due to departmental formalities as the Petitioner being Govt. Hospital, which had to follow certain procedures. I have perused the application for condonation of delay. According to the Petitioner, the delay was due to sanction of the invoice amount by the Office of the Dy. Director, Health Services, Thane and also due to first and second wave of COVID-19 pandemic, which made it difficult to follow up with their Advocate. It took time upto August, 2021.

9. It is strange that the Petitioner received the certified copy of the State Commission Order on 09.11.2017, therefore, the time limit for filing the Revision Petition was 90 days i.e. before 09.02.2018. The outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic occurred only in December, 2019, but the Petitioner raised frivolous ground of Covid-19 pandemic. It clearly shows the casual approach of the Petitioner, who slept over their rights. Thus, I notice that long before the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the limitation to file the Revision Petition had expired.

10. In my view, the explanation as given in the application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioner does not make out sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay of 1320 days in filing the instant Revision Petition. The law of limitation binds everybody including the Government. The Government Departments are under an obligation to exercise due diligence to ensure that their right to initiate legal proceedings is not extinguished by operation of the law of limitation. A different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down because the government is involved.

11. Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons which prevented them to come to the Court/Commission within the stipulated period of limitation. I would like to rely upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, discussed and defined the expression ‘sufficient cause’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, has held as under:—

“It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If