Skip to main content

NCDRC refuses to entertain plea against Hyderabad hospitals because of delay in filling

The apex consumer commission has refused to entertain a plea by a woman and her daughter alleging medical negligence by two Hyderabad-based hospitals and a doctor, saying they were “careless” in pursuing their case.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) rejected the Hyderabad-based complainants’ plea against an Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order dismissing their case on account of delay in the filing of appeal, saying the petitioners were “negligent” in pursuing their complaint in a diligent manner.

The order came on petitioners G Suseela and her daughter V Ramya’s revision petition against the state commission’s decision dismissing their appeal against a district forum order.

“We fully agree with the reasoning given by the State Commission that there was delay of 430 days in filing the appeal before it. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioners (mother and daughter) is so negligent that, firstly, they did not pursue their complaint before a district forum in a diligent manner since their complaint was dismissed for non-appearance,” said an NCDRC bench comprising Justice VB Gupta and member Rekha Gupta.

“Even thereafter, the complainants did not become wiser and filed an appeal before the State Commission in a very careless and casual manner with a delay of 430 days,” it said.

“Moreover, a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondents (hospital and the doctor) which cannot be taken away due to the negligent act on the part of the petitioners,” the bench said.

The district forum had in August, 2011, dismissed the complaint filed by Suseela’s late husband, VS Prasad, against Sai Vanu Hospital Limited and Care Hospital and Dr PL Chary due to lack of representation from the family.

The complainants had then moved the state commission which, in July last year, upheld the district forum’s order saying their appeal was delayed by 430 days.

The state commission was of the considered view that the explanation given by the petitioners about the delay was neither reasonable nor believable and also not sufficient.

Article referred: http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/ncdrc-refuses-to-entertain-plea-against-hyderabad-hospitals--38086.html

 Comment:

 As referred elsewhere in this blog, condonation of delay is discretionary power and should show equal justice to both sides.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more