Skip to content


Subash, Vipanchika Vs. M/S. G.G. Hospital, R/by Its Proprietor, Dr. G. Velayudhan, G.G. Hospital and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided On

Case Number

First Appeal No. 267 of 2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 16/10/2012 in Case No. 353/2012 of District Thiruvananthapuram)

Judge

Appellant

Subash, Vipanchika

Respondent

M/S. G.G. Hospital, R/by Its Proprietor, Dr. G. Velayudhan, G.G. Hospital and Others

Excerpt:


.....the matter with the 3rd opposite party advocate to file the complaint which he did not do. 3. the forum dismissed the complaint as time barred. the complainant has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the forum. 4. heard the counsel for the appellant/complainant and opposite parties. 5. the surgery was conducted on the complainant in the year 1998. the complaint has been filed in 2012 after a lapse of more than 13 years the said salary has not been properly explained by the complainant. under section 24 a of the consumer protection act, a complaint has to be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. therefore we confirm the finding of the forum that complaint is time barred and therefore it is not maintainable. in the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:


P.Q. Barkathali: President

This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.353/12 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the order of the Forum dated, October 16, 2012 dismissing the complaint as time barred.

2. The complainant filed the complaint before the Forum alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties regarding surgery conducted by the opposite parties 1 and 2 on the complainant in 1998 and claiming refund of the treatment expenses. It is further alleged in the complaint that he entrusted the matter with the 3rd opposite party Advocate to file the complaint which he did not do.

3. The Forum dismissed the complaint as time barred. The complainant has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/complainant and opposite parties.

5. The surgery was conducted on the complainant in the year 1998. The complaint has been filed in 2012 after a lapse of more than 13 years the said salary has not been properly explained by the complainant. Under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint has to be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. Therefore we confirm the finding of the Forum that complaint is time barred and therefore it is not maintainable.

In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //