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.
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.
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