LAXMAN DASS Vs. G.C. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") seeking condonation of delay in filing the counter claim was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was operated upon by the respondent on 9.2.2005 and was implanted intraocular lense in his right eye. As the problem was not cured despite repeated visits of the petitioner to the respondent and even to the Eye Hospital, to which he was referred to, a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short "the Forum") on 18.7.200S alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent, which was dismissed on 28.3.2006. Appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana on 12.12.2008. The order was upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 16.9.2009. The respondent filed a suit for damages and compensation against the petitioner on 19.5.2010, in which the petitioner besides filing the written statement, filed counter claim for permanent loss of vision on account of medical negligence of the respondent. Application under Section 14 of the Act was also filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the counter claim. The period spend by the petitioner before different forum/commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was sought to be excluded. The application having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Section 14 of the Act, the period spent by a party before a wrong forum was to be excluded. In the case in hand, the authorities under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could not go into the issue of medical negligence, hence, it did not have jurisdiction. The period spent by the petitioner deserved to be excluded and the counter claim filed by him was to be entertained.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made.