KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                            VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.694/10

JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    --  MEMBER

Sathiyamma,                                                       --APPELLANT

W/o Sivankutty Nair,

Satheesh Bhavan, Ulanadu,

Kulanada, Pathanamthitta.

(By Adv.P.Rajmohan)

               Vs.

1.    Medical Superinteendent,                             -- RESPONDENTS

N.S.S. Medical Mission Hospital, 

Pandalam.

(By Adv.K.Murlidharan Nair)

2.    Dr.K.E.Moorthy.M.S.,

             -do-do-

3.    The Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,

P.B.No.26, Rajeswary Complex,

Perunna,Changanassery.

(By Adv.George Mathew)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR  : MEMBER

          The complainant in OP.47/03 before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint vide order dated 7.10.10 by the Forum below.

          2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that she had undergone treatment in the first opposite party hospital and that the first opposite party treated her for ulcer on her left leg and that varicose operation was done on 25.5.1999 and that inspite of treatment and  continuation of the treatment in other hospitals her condition became worse and alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed in 2003 claiming compensation and costs.

          3. The opposite parties filed version denying the allegations of the complainant and also contending that the complaint was barred by limitation.  It was their case that the complainant had undergone treatment and operation on 25.5.99  and the complaint was filed only in 2003 and that the said complaint was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. On merit also the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          4. The Forum below after taking evidence dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation since the complainant was  discharged from the first opposite party’s hospital on 7.7.99 and the complaint was filed on 24.4.03.  The forum below has found that the complainant has not adduced sufficient evidence to show that there were reason for condoning the delay as per sub section 2 of Section 24 (A)  of the Consumer Protection Act.

          5. Heard both sides.

          6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that the Forum below ought to have condoned the delay in filing the complaint since the complainant was continuing the treatment after discharge from the first opposite party’s hospital on 7.7.99 and that she came to know that all the difficulties were consequent to the deficiency  in  the treatment by the second opposite party in the first opposite party hospital and hence the forum below ought to have condoned the delay of  2 years in filing the complaint before the Forum.   However, it is admitted that there was no separate petition filed by the complainant to condone the delay.

7. The learned counsel argued before us that Exts.A1 to A10 were enough to prove the fact that all the complications to the appellant/complainant occurred due to the wrong treatment meted out b