S SAMICKANNU Vs. VIJAYASANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals without going into the merits of the rival contentions, we are obliged to remand the matter for decision by the District Forum on the question of limitation.

(2.) During the course of arguments before us, the learned Counsel, Mr. Naresh Kumar, appearing for the opposite party, Dr. S. Swamickannu, raised the question of limitation stating that the complainant got treated by Dr. Rangabashyam in 1995, that the complaint came to be filed only on 7.12.1998, more than 2 years after the treatment by Dr. Rangabashyam and that the complaint was, therefore, barred by limitation.

(3.) Per contra, Ms. Devika, learned Counsel for the complainants, D. Vijayasankar and Amudha, referred to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court, National Commission and other State Commissions and submitted the question of limitation had not been raised by the opposite party before the District Forum and that he could not be allowed to raise the same at the appellate stage. The learned Counsel, however, submitted that in case, the opposite party was to be allowed to raise the question of limitation, the complainants should be given adequate opportunity to meet the case of limitation by their being permitted to file additional documents to show that the claim was not barred by limitation.