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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more