DEAN CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ HOSPITAL Vs. RAMESH GAIKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is delay of 514 days in filing the instant revision petition before this Commission. The appeal filed before the State Commission was dismissed in default because of non-appearance on 19.10.2010. The petitioner's Advocate learnt about the same. It is note-worthy that no dates are mentioned as to when the petitioner's Advocate learnt it about the same and when the information was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, the application for restoration was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 21.11.2011. That is not within 30 days. That application was also barred by time. In the meantime, the Apex court delivered a judgment in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 541, wherein it was held that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions are not armed with the power to review their own orders or set aside the ex-parte orders and the same power is vested within the realm of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, under Section 22(2) and 22(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The application for setting aside the ex parte was dismissed by the State Commission on 20.4.2012. The alarm bells should have rung by then but the petitioner was so negligent that he did not file the revision petition immediately. The revision petition was filed on 08.08.2012, i.e. about almost two years.

(2.) The petitioner has explained that their counsel had informed the petitioner's hospital. The petitioner is working under the Thane Municipal Corporation and as such its decisions are taken only after the modalities and procedures prescribed under the usual rules of procedure of the Thane Municipal Corporation, after the intimation of the order that application was not maintainable. The petitioner accordingly informed the authorities of the Corporation and requested for taking steps for approaching this Commission. The Law Department of the Thane Municipal Corporation procured all the papers from the Advocate and contacted another Advocate who represents the Thane Municipal Corporation in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, at that time, the said Advocate was out of India. He came back on 29.06.2012. The name of either of Advocates did not see the light of the day. The papers were sent to him. The Advocate called for information on two specific aspects, namely, the date of filing of application for restoration of appeal and whether there was an order passed by the Hon'ble State Commission holding that the application was not maintainable. The counsel of the Law Department met that other counsel. The details were sent to the Advocate, thereafter, this petition was filed.

(3.) We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He reiterated the above stand. The above stand does not constitute "sufficient cause". First of all, there was delay in moving the application for restoration. No explanation is forthcoming. Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India merely reiterated the provisions of law already mentioned in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no provision for review by the District Forum or the State Commission. The authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak's case had come in August, 2011. It was the duty of the counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the application for restoration immediately. The delaying tactics in this case are apparent. They should have approached the revisional court immediately. Above all, there is no explanation as to why there was delay from 24.04.2012 to 08.08.2012. There is unexplained delay. It is now well settled that departmental and official procedural delays do not constitute the "sufficient ground". It must be borne in mind that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down its own period of limitation under the Limitation Act. This a Special Act which prescribes the summary procedure and its provisions should be strictly followed. The consumer foras are directed to dispose of the appeal within a prescribed period of 45 days of its filing. The following authorities neatly dovetail with the facts of the above said case.