M RAJENDRAN Vs. K DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in C.O.P. No. 58/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation complaint not having been filed within two years from the date of death and also on the ground that the complainant had not established the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant s son had consumed poison. The opposite party had given treatment. According to the complainant, when a medico legal case had come to a doctor, he had to refer the same to Government hospital after giving first aid to him to the maximum possible extent. The opposite party had admittedly given treatment for the complainant s son for 9 days in his hospital between 2.11.1999 and 10.11.1999 and between 11.11.1999 and 15.11.1999 he was kept as inpatient without being given treatment and also compelling the complainant to shift the patient to Government hospital for further treatment.

(3.) THE incident took place between 2.11.1999 and 17.11.1999 on which date the complainant s son passed away the complaint ought to have been filed within a period of two years from 17.11.1999 i.e., on or before 16.11.2001. However, it came to be filed only on 27.6.2002. It is a clear case of bar of limitation. The complainant had made a demand one year 9 months and 6 days after the death of his son on 17.11.1999 that was on 23.8.2001. A reply by the opposite party denying deficiency in service or negligence would not give cause of action for filing the complaint. The complainant did not also file any application under Section 24A. In our view, the District Forum had rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation also. Even otherwise the complainant had not established that the opposite party had given wrong treatment by producing expert evidence. He had also not established that such a large sum as Rs. 75,000 as claimed by him was paid to the opposite party. He did not produce any affidavit from third parties from whom he had borrowed for the treatment of his son. Ex. B1 case sheet would show that proper treatment had been given to the complainant. As to the truth of Ex. B1 the complainant had not challenged. It is also in evidence that the opposite party had sought the assistance of other experts for the giving treatment to complainant s son. Further, when the complainant brought his son for treatment, the opposite party had asked the complainant to report the matter to the police which was not done by the complainant and thereafter the opposite party himself reported the matter to the police, the police registered a case and on coming to know of that the complainant absconded leaving his wife and son. This had been specifically raised in the version of the opposite party and it had not been disputed by the complainant. Absolutely no case was made out impeaching the conduct of the opposite party that he was negligent. The complainant had also been rightly non -suited on the ground of limitation. The District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. There is no case made out for interference.