SHANTI DEVI Vs. MANOJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Professor Baleshwar Singh, through his son and general attorney holder Nand Kishore Singh, has filed this complaint under Section 21 read with Section 2 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and has sought a compensation of Rs.39,36,700/- with interest @ 24% per annum on Rs.19,95,000/- from 1st of September, 1999 till date of realization. In response to the notice issued to them, the opposite parties denying that there was any negligence on their part and further raising a preliminary objection that the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation and contending that the complaint was frivolous have sought its dismissal.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the complaint, Professor Baleshwar Singh expired on 16th of July, 2006 and his son and attorney Nand Kishore Singh filed Miscellaneous Application No. 67 of 2007 for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased on record. His request was granted vide this Commission's order dated 14th September, 2007 and, therefore, an amended memo of parties was filed, which included Smt. Shanti Devi, the widow of the deceased and other heirs. The opposite parties dissatisfied with the order of this Commission allowing the legal representatives to be brought on record filed Misc. Application No. 220 of 2008 urging the dismissal of the complaint, firstly on the ground that after the death of the original complainant Professor Baleshwar Singh, his legal representatives did not qualify to be complainants within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) of the Act. In addition, it was submitted that the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation, inasmuch as the cause of action arose on the 2nd/5th of November, 1993 whereas the complaint has been filed after a lapse of more than five years on 13th September, 1999. On this miscellaneous application, this Commission ordered that it will be taken up for consideration at the time of final arguments vide its order dated 13th of October, 2008. Thereafter, Smt. Shanti Devi, widow of the complainant deceased Professor Baleshwar Singh, also expired on 23rd of January, 2010 and an application was filed for the deletion of her name from the array of the complainants as all her legal representatives were already duly represented in the complaint, which was allowed.

(3.) THE parties have filed their respective evidence and submitted their written arguments. At the time of final hearing of the case, learned counsel for the opposite parties brought to the notice of the Commission that their Miscellaneous Application No. 220 of 2008 raising objection to the bringing on record the legal representatives of Professor Baleshwar Singh (the complainant) after his death and also their objection to the complaint being barred by limitation should be considered at the outset.