P BALARAM Vs. J LAKSHMANA RAO AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the common order dated 23.5.2012 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad ('State Commission' for short) by which the State Commission allowed F.A. No.818 of 2010 filed by respondent No.1 setting aside the order dated 3.6.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vizianagaram and dismissed F.A. No.1261 of 2010 of the petitioner. Along with these revision petitions, the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay of 79 days in filing the revision petitions.

(2.) IT is submitted in the application that the petitioner received the certified copy of the impugned order in the first week of July 2010 but due to his financial condition, he took some time to arrange money for engaging a lawyer at New Delhi for filing the revision petitions. In the process, the delay occurred which according to the petitioner was neither wilful nor deliberate but on account of the financial condition of the petitioner. We are not convinced with the explanation for the delay offered by the petitioner and hence the petitions are liable for dismissal on this ground alone.

(3.) COMING to the merits, the facts relevant for decision in this case are that the petitioner who is an employee of the APSRTC was suffering from hernia and after diagnosis, he was operated by OP No.1 on 14.5.2004 and was discharged from the hospital of OP No.1 on 18.5.2004. Since he continued to suffer from pain, he consulted other doctors who stated that due to failure of operation, the complainant was suffering from pain because OP No1 had wrongly conducted the operation on a different nerve. The complainant underwent another operation by spending substantial amount for which he made a request to Executive Director (Medical) of the APSRTC for grant of the expenses of Rs.26,600/ -. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant/petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum which was registered by the District Forum as C.C. No.5 of 2008. On notice, OP No.1/Respondent No.1 resisted the complaint denying any deficiency on his part while conducting the operation and treating the petitioner and also on the ground of limitation. The District Forum vide its order dated 3.6.2010 allowed the complaint on the premise that the OPs rendered deficiency in service in conducting the operation as a result of which, the complainant suffered and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ - as compensation with interest and cost. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, OP No.1/Respondent No.1 filed F.A. No.818 of 2010 against it denying deficiency on his part and contending that the complainant is not a consumer since he had not paid any money for treatment to the OP hospital and that the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation. Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, complainant/petitioner also filed an appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded from Rs.1,50,000/ - to Rs.15,00,000/ -. As stated above, the State Commission vide its impugned order allowed the appeal of the respondent No.1 setting aside the order of the District Forum and dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as also the complaint filed by him. We have heard Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. It be noted that the State Commission vide its impugned order has dismissed the appeal and the complaint of the petitioner both on the grounds of complaint being barred by limitation as well as it being without any merit. While dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as well as the complaint, the State Commission has given reasons in support of the impugned order in paras 20 to 23 which may be reproduced thus: -