ABRAHAM KOOLA Vs. ROYAL HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Abraham Koola has challenged the judgment of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in OP NO. 20/2000. In the impugned order, the complaint of medical negligence against Royal Hospital and Dr. P. R. George has been dismissed by the State Commission, holding that no negligence can be attributed to the Respondents/OPs.

(2.) The above order in OP No. 20/2000 was passed by the State Commission on 15.8.2005, but the present appeal against this order has been filed on 18.1.2007. Thus, there is a delay of 491 days in filing the appeal. This delay attracts the provision in Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which gives the Appellant a period of 30 days only from the date of the order of the State Commission. However, the proviso to this Section allow this Commission to entertain an appeal filed beyond 30 days, if the Commission is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.

(3.) We have perused the application filed by the Appellants/Complainants with an explanation of the reasons, which caused this delay. The application is clearly written without any indication of the number of days of delay, which it is seeking to explain. The first ground is that the Appellant is a Teacher under great financial hardship. It took some time to arrange the necessary fund for filing the appeal in time. He had to take loans for the same. This cryptic explanation gives no idea of the Appellant's understanding of the likely expenses nor does it give any idea of the time taking in arranging the same. The second explanation is that even after arranging the money he could not find a suitable counsel to handle the case in Delhi. He claims to have sent of the case and the Vakalatanama to a counsel on 17.11.2006. This itself was 15 months after the date of the impugned order. However, according to the Complainant, but the same was returned to him on 28.11.2006, on account error in the address. Thereafter, he obtained the correct address telephonically and sent the papers again. The Complainant claims that he was informed by the counsel on 7.12.2006 that the documents were not properly executed. Once again, there is no supporting evidence to show the return of the post and of finding of inadequacies in the documents by the counsel in Delhi. Both should be matters of fact and supporting evidence should exist in relation to both.