LAWS(NCD)-2012-11-45

ASHA HARGEN YADAV Vs. BALABHAI NANAVATI HOSPITAL

Decided On November 20, 2012
Asha Hargen Yadav Appellant
V/S
Balabhai Nanavati Hospital Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by .121 days. It is also surprising to note that the alarm bells should have rung and the revision petition should have been filed within the period of limitation but unfortunately the same was further delayed by 77 days.

(2.) FIRST of all, we turn to the application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission. The version set up by the petitioner is that she met with an accident on 11.09.2010. The petitioner contacted her advocate and requested to appear on 06.12.2010 before the State Commission, seek quantum enhancement and modification of the order passed by the District Forum dated 29.06.2010. Her advocate informed her that she would have to file an appeal Thereafter, the appeal was preferred before the State Commission which was delayed by 121 days. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence to show that she had met with an accident. She herself admits that she had received the copy of the impugned order on 05.08.2010. There is no cogent or plausible evidence to prove her allegations. We have also perused her application for condonation of delay in filing this revision petition. The delay was explained m paras no. 2 and 3 of the application which are reproduced as follows: -

(3.) ALL these facts hardly constitute sufficient cause as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Such like stories can be created at any time. A Litigant must be vigilant after her case stands dismissed as barred by time by the State Commission. She should not have lost any time to file the revision petition immediately. The plea raised in the application are vague, evasive and lead us nowhere. When the Advocate was aware of the fate of his first appeal, he should have left no stone unturned to file the revision petition immediately by reconstructing the record. In this case, the mistake lies with the Advocate who appears to have created this false ground in order to save the limitation.