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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more