Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1153
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sri. B. Sudheendra Kumar, PRESIDENT
Neethu P – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Nandhini V R – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/343/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Bijulal, N.G. Mahesh
For the Respondents: K. Murlidharan Nair, Mithun
The appeal was dismissed as the complainant failed to establish sufficient grounds for the delay in filing the complaint, confirming the lower court's ruling.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act - Delay in filing complaint - Delay of 475 days in complaint dismissed by District Commission - Justification for delay examined - Documents insufficient to establish cause for delay - Commission upheld the dismissal. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Maintainability of complaint against government doctors - The issue of maintainability was not addressed in the appeal. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged deficiency in service regarding treatment in government hospitals and sought condonation for delay in filing the complaint due to pending petitions before authorities.
Findings of Court:
The complainant failed to provide sufficient grounds for the delay, and the District Commission's dismissal order was upheld.
Issues: The court considered whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that adequate justification for the delay was not established, confirming the District Commission's decision to dismiss the appeal.
Result: This appeal stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant's grievance regarding deficiency in service. (Para 2) |
| 2. insufficient justification for the delayed complaint. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. maintainability of the complaint not addressed in detail. (Para 5) |
| 4. court upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to lack of justification. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 342/2018 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, “the District Commission”).
2. The complainant filed a complaint against the doctors of Sri Avittom Thirunal Hospital and the Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and the Secretary to Government alleging deficiency in service in connection with the treatment of the complainant. Along with the complaint, I.A. No. 210/2018 was also filed by the complainant praying for condoning the delay of 475 days in filing the complaint. The District Commission dismissed I.A. No. 210/2018 and consequent upon the dismissal of I.A. No. 210/2018, the complaint was also dismissed, against which this appeal has been filed.
3. Heard. Perused the records.
4. The complainant contended that the complainant approached many authorities and Fora for the redressal of her grievances and those petitions are still pending before the authorities without any merit. Since the said petitions were pending before the authorities concerned, the complainant could not approach the District Commission within time and hence there occurred a delay of 475 days in filing the complaint.
st
5. The 1 opposite party filed a detailed counter vehemently opposing the application. The complainant produced 10 documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A10 for the purpose of I.A. No. 210/2018 by the District Commission. The District Commission found that out of the documents produced by the complainant, Exhibits A6 and A7 are the documents showing that the father of the complainant filed separate complaints before the Director General of Police and the Human Rights Commission. It is clear from Exhibit A8 that the Human Rights Commission disposed of the petition on 03.07.2015. We have gone through the records and we are satisfied that the District Commission was perfectly justified in finding that Exhibits A6 and A8 are the only documents which would show that the complainant had approached some authorities before filing the complaint. The complainant also did not produce any document to show that the complainant had approached any authority after 03.07.2015, as rightly found by the District Commission. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that since the first and the second opposite parties are rd doctors in the Government Hospital under the 3 opposite party, the consumer complaint itself is not maintainable. However, in this appeal, we are not called upon to decide the question of maintainability of the complaint.
6. The complainant had submitted that since the complainant had approached various authorities for the redressal of her grievances, there occurred a delay of 475 days in filing the complaint. However, the materials produced by the complainant are not at all sufficient to justify the said contention of the complainant.
7. Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that the complainant could not establish that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay of 475 days in filing the complaint. Consequently, the order passed by the District Commission does not warrant any interference by this Commission.
