JAI SINGH Vs. SATISH KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 17.08.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission ') in FA No. 964/2007, "Dr. Satish Khurana versus Jai Singh " vide which, while allowing appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani, allowing the complaint was set aside and consumer complaint no. 603/2003 filed by the present petitioner/complainant was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent/OP Dr. Satish Khurana held an eye camp in village Luhari Jatu, District Bhiwani, Haryana, where the complainant was advised by the OP Doctor to visit his hospital at Bhiwani for operation of his eye and implanting lens in the eye. The very next day, the complainant visited the hospital of OP No. 1 Bhiwani and got himself operated and paid a sum of Rs.1,550/ - to the Doctor. It has been alleged by the complainant that the lens was implanted during the operation of the eye, but after this procedure, his eye was totally damaged. The complainant filed consumer complaint no. 603/2003 before the District Forum, claiming a compensation of Rs.5 lakh from the respondent/OP. The OP took the stand that the complainant had never been operated by him nor did he implant lens in his eye. The District Forum vide their order dated 06.03.2007 allowed the complaint and directed the OP Doctor to pay a sum of Rs.1.5 lakh, along with litigation fee of Rs.1,000/ -. An appeal filed against this order was, however, allowed by the State Commission vide their order dated 17.08.2011 and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) WE have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us and perused the record. The reasons cited by the petitioner in his application for condonation of delay, or at the time of arguments, do not appear to be convincing by any yardstick. The impugned order was passed in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner/complainant and hence he is supposed to be in knowledge of the said order. It has been stated in the copy of the order of the State Commission, filed with the revision petition that the certified copy of the order was given free of cost to the counsel of the party on 21.09.2011. Another duplicate copy was given on 16.1.2012. It is clear, therefore, that after receiving the copy of the order on 21.09.2011, the petitioner did not file his revision petition within the prescribed time.