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

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more