REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE TRIVANDRUM Vs. M GOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is against Ext. P4 order passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The first respondent filed Ext. P1 petition before the said Commission alleging human rights violation consequently on an alleged act by the petitioners herein, during his treatment at the hospital of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner is the Director of the hospital. The petitioners objected on the grounds of limitation. S.36(2) the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 provides that State Commission shall not enquire into any matter after expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights alleged to have been committed. Therefore, Ext. P1 petition was filed belatedly beyond the said period from the date of alleged human rights violation namely, administration of certain chemicals on 13.1.2000, 14.1.2000 and 15.1.2000. Even according to the 1st respondent on 13.1.2000, 14.1.2000 and 15.1.2000 he was given M4N and G4N injections and on 18.1.2000 he was subjected to a surgery. Ext. P1 petition was filed on 1.8.2001. This is beyond the period provided for objection in S.36(2), the petitioners submits. But this contention was tried as preliminary issue was overruled in Ext. P4, finding that the effect of Act may still continue and in such circumstances by no stretch of reasoning it can be said that the petition was barred by limitation under S.36(2). This finding was entered into relying on Page No. 36 of the Law Laxicon edited by Y.V. Chandrachood, Former Chief Justice of India.

(2.) Assailing Ext. P1 it is contended by the petitioners that period of limitation prescribed in the said statute is to be strictly construed. The court cannot be stretch the period of limitation beyond the period made mentioned of in the statute concerned. The decisions, in ( AIR 1999 SC 3101 ) Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal and others and ( AIR 1999 SC 1351 ) Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd. & another have been cited in support of this contention. As held in the former case the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its vigour when the statute so prescribes. The court cannot extend the period of limitation on equitable ground more particular in the matter of filing of election petitions under the Act. This was on a question of limitation in terms of Representation of Peoples Act. The period of limitation prescribed in this case is also in terms of special statute namely Protection of Human Rights Act. Dealing with converse situation in the latter case, the Supreme Court held that when the statute does not prescribe any period of limitation the court cannot throw out a petition on the ground of limitation. Going by the pleadings contained in Ext. P1 and the dates of administration of the alleged chemical or medicines as the case may be, during January 2000, the petition was filed beyond the period of limitation of one year provided in S.36(2). Ext. P1 was filed only on 1.8.2001. Applying strict rule of limitation contained in S.36(2) of the Act, Ext. P1 petition ought to have been dismissed upholding the preliminary objection rather than rejecting it as per Ext. P4.

(3.) It is contended by the 1st respondent that the administration of medicine was in January 2000 as averred in Para 5 of Ext. P1 petition. The medicine had been consumed by him bona fide believing that it had been prescribed by the doctor to cure his ailment. This cannot be taken as the dates for the purpose of limitation. No symptoms were noticed by mere administration of the medicine on the said dates. Symptoms arose when adverse reactions were noticed. According to him as averred in para 6 of the Ext. P1 he experienced foreign body sensation in throat on 14.1.2000 and thereafter he was subjected to laryngoscopy and biopsy and the result disclosed that a further tumour had developed. According to him it was developed after injucting these chemicals as averred in para 6 of Ext. P1. New tumour was noticed after 14.1.2000. It developed because of administration of the medicine, he submits. Of course that is a matter which shall be left to be strictly proved him. There is clear allegation that he experienced alleged adverse effect of administration of the medicine, on 14.1.2000. That is the date of knowledge, so far as he is concerned, about the adversity he is alleged to be suffering. Therefore, that shall be taken as the starting period of limitation, the 1st respondent submits.