RAVINDRANATH BABU MAHALAKSHMICLINIC, MADURAI Vs. T.R. INDIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The respondent herein as complainant, filed a petition against the Revision Petitioner, claiming a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation, alleging medical negligence. Originally, the last date of treatment given to the petitioners son is 26.10.1997. Unfortunately, the son of the complainant died on 25.2.1998. As mandated under the Act, the complainant has not filed the case within two years, from the date of cause of action, whether the cause of action is to be taken is the as last date of treatment or the date of death of the son of the complainant, as the case may be.

(2.) Originally, the complainant informed the court, that there was a delay of 104 days, filed a petition before the District Forum in IA.No.218/2000, which was allowed by the District Forum, probably without ordering notice to the otherside. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party in the complaint, preferred a Revision Petition, before this commission in R.P.No.4/2001, wherein this commission set aside the order, condoning the delay of 104 days, then issued direction to the District Forum, that notice should b ordered before condoning the delay. Pursuant to the direction given by this Commission, once again another CMP.No.62/2008 before the District Forum, complaining as if there is a delay of 977 days, which was opposed by the opposite party.

(3.) The District Forum, considering the rival contentions of the parties, and going into the facts in detail, felt the calculation of the delay as if 997 days had stated is incorrect, whereas it is the observation of the District Forum, that if the date of cause of action is to be taken as the last date of treatment, the delay must be if at all, should be 228 days. It is the further observation, that if the date of death of the complainants son has to be taken as the date of cause of action, the delay should be 104 days. Thus, taking both view, accepting the averments, that there are sufficient reasons, to condone the delay, the petition was allowed, the delay was condoned, as per the order dt.10.7.2008, which is under challenge before us, in this Revision petition.