JAYANTILAL PATEL (DR.) Vs. MUKESH PARIKH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondents had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the appellant.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that the second respondents wife was pregnant with the fourth child and when they contacted the appellant, he advised to undergo tub ligation for family-planning purposes for which the deceased was got admitted in the hospital of the appellant where the surgery was done on 1.4.1998 but within few hours, it was noticed that the kidney was damaged after which she was shifted to kidney hospital, where she expired on 4.4.1998. It was the case of the complainant that admittedly, the family-planning operation was simple but on account of negligence on the part of the appellant, the deceased died. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after receiving the complaint, affidavit in evidence and cross-examination of the second complainant went on to pass the orders holding the appellant guilty medical negligence and directing him to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the second respondent Lalitbhai Maganbhai Rathod, along with cost of Rs. 3,000 to be shared between the two respondents. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) There is an application for condonation of delay of 388 days, filed by the appellant. The only reason given for condonation of delay is the state of depression caused to the appellant on account of the judgment of the State Commission. We see no material on record about the treatment for depression, administered by any physician or neuro-physician to the appellant, in view of which we find that sufficient ground has not been advanced by the appellant to condone the delay. In our view, we are further strengthened by the objections filed by the respondent/second complainant before us, in which it is clearly stated that as early as on 9th Oct., 2006, the appellant appeared before the State Commission in response to the notice issued by the State Commission in exercise of power under Sec. 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission directed him to deposit Rs. 1,21,000 before the State Commission, which was not done. Subsequently, a bailable warrant and again non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant yet he did not present. Finally, when the order of execution was served through the Police Commissioners Office, even arrested and produced before the State Commission, and wherein he was released on bail on 26.5.2007 with a direction to deposit Rs. 25,000 before 20th June, 2007, but even this was not done. Finally as late as on 7.7.2007 an amount of Rs. 50,000 has been deposited. Neither on the application for condonation of delay nor in the Memo of Appeal, a single word has been said about the delinquent conduct of the appellant, more so without any medical support of the appellants being in depression. In these circumstances, we see no ground to condone the delay - hence application for condonation of delay stands dismissed and hold the appeal to be barred by limitation.