ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. The Facts: The complainant one Chandra @ Chandrika preferred a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence against the opposite party/doctor. It is her contention in the affidavit that she was treated by the opposite party and committed medical negligence on 01.03.2011. The above complaint has to be filed within two years i.e., on or before 01.03.2013. But the complainant taking further treatment at G.Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital, she was bedridden and unable to move anywhere. Hence there was a delay in filing the complaint. Hence she prayed to condone the delay of 301 days.

2. On the other hand the opposite party in their counter stated that the above application is not maintainable and each days delay was not explained properly. The complainant was not taking any continuous treatment and the allegations that she was bedridden all along is also not true. Hence, te prayed to dismiss the petition.

3. The District Commission received Exhibits-P1 to P6 and Ex.R1 series, finally, dismissed the petition.

4 . Aggrieved with the above order, this appeal has been preferred by the complainant on the following:

Grounds: That, the District Commission failed to note that she was as an in-

patient as well as out-patient taking treatment till 13.09.2013. The District Commission without applying its mind merely relying H.M.O.P.194/2013 which was conducted between 01.03.2011 till 13.09.2013 and parties presence were not necessary for those proceedings. Hence dismissal order is liable to be set aside.

5. In this case, on 27.09.2023 there is no representation for the appellant and opposite party alone present and argued.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the appeal is to be allowed?

7. Discussion on the Point: It is the case of the complainant that she suffered by the medical negligence committed by the opposite party and she also took further treatment at G.Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital and she was continuously took treatment and unable to file her complaint in time. On the other hand the opposite party pleaded that she was not in continuous treatment and she was not bedridden.

8. However the opposite party by relying upon the discharge summary issued by the G.Kuppusamy Naidu Memorial Hospital contended in their affidavit that the complainant was discharged from the hospital on 15.03.2011 itself and she was asked to come for review on 23.03.2011 and the petitioner failed to produce any documents except Ex.P1 and P2 dated 08.06.2013 and 13.09.2013. And both documents are only laboratory reports. She did not prove that the petitioner was all along bedridden or all along taking treatment. Even the other prescription are related only to the period on 04.05.2013, 09.07.2013, 10.09.2013, 12.11.2013 and they are all did not prove any continuous treatment from 2011 to 2014.

9. Moreover the complainant meanwhile filed a divorce petition before Karur, Subordinate Judge Court and the proceedings were marked as Ex.R1 series. The petitioner alleged that she was unable to move anywhere and continuously took treatment as well as bedridden from 2011 to 2014. But, the above divorce petition was filed in the year 2012 and it shows that she was healthy enough to lodge a divorce proceedings before a competent Civil Court. It may be true that she need not go to Civil Court for each and every hearing, at the same time, she need not attend each hearing in the appeal before this commission too. The Commission here emphasize that during the period of her alleged illness and bedridden, the complainant was able to prefer divorce petition against her husband and able to give evidence and get necessary order from the competent court. When she was healthy enough to conduct a civil proceeding, why she failed to prefer the consumer complaint in time is the specific question for which the answer was not in fa