JUDGMENT

Manojit Mandal, President.—This revision petition is at the instance of the revisionist/ petitioner and is directed against the order No. 15 dated 23/07/2024 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Unit-II ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with M.A. No. 579 of 2022 arising out of complaint case No. CC/90/2022 whereby the Learned District Commission was pleased to reject the maintainability application.

2. The respondents being the complainants filed a petition of complaint before the Learned District Commission being No. CC/90/2022 praying for the following reliefs :-

“A) Pecuniary Damage

a) Rs.19,36,286 (Rupees Nineteen Lac Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Six) only towards the cost of treatment with OP No. 1 Hospital to be returned with interest by the Opposite parties.

b) Rs.47,88,000.00 (Rupees Forty Seven Lac Eighty Eight Thousand only) towards loss of prospective / future earning of the victim SANJAY SINGH aged 51 years up to 70 years (life expectancy) over a period of 19 years @Rs.30,000.00 per month on an average (Rs.30000 x 12 x 19-30%) = Rs.47,88,000/-.

B) For Non Pecuniary damages towards :

a) for pain & sufferings endured by the complainants during treatment, for loss of amenities, for enjoyment of life and shortening of life expectancy and pain and suffering endured at the time of death of the victim, emotional distress Rs.1,00,00,000.00 (Rupees One Crore Only)

Total A+B = 1,67,24,286.00

(Rupees One Crore Sixty Seven Lac Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Six Only).”

3. The revisionist / petitioner entered appearance in this case and filed written version denying the material allegation of the petition of complaint. The revisionist / petitioner also filed an application challenging the maintainability of the complaint case.

4. The Learned District Commission was pleased to reject the said maintainability application by the order impugned.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the revisionist / petitioner has preferred this revisional application.

6. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist / petitioner and carefully perused the record, the memo of revision petition and other documents.

7. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist and on perusal of the record it appears to me that the revisionist / petitioner filed an application challenging the maintainability of the case on the ground that the complaint case is barred by limitation describing some facts in the said petition. On scrutiny of the records it appears to me that the revisionist / petitioner has supplied the copies of the medical records to the complainants on different dates i.e. on 30/06/2017, 15/07/2017, 16/08/2018, 15/09/2018, 19/11/2018, 01/01/2019, 25/02/2019 and 26/02/2019. On consideration of supplying the medical papers it can be said that the first cause of action of the present case arose on 07/09/2016 when the patient died as well as on 30/06/2017 and continued till 26/02/2019.

8. It is settled law that on 23/03/2020 the Hon’ble Apex Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the issue of limitation running vis-a-vis the strict Covid 19 restrictions in connection with suo motu WP(C) No. 03 of 2020.

9. It is also well settled that the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 10/01/2022 has restored its earlier order for the exclusion of period starting from 15/03/2020 till 18/02/2022 for the purpose of computing limitation prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings in the light of the spread of the 3rd wave of Covid 19 pandemic.

10. It is well settled that the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 23/09/2021 laid down further directions to be followed moving forward in respect of extension of limitation period.

11. It is well settled that the Hon’ble Apex Court has further directed that the previous orders in respect of extension of the l