NISHA SHARMA Vs. DR. SURESH VERMA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Complainant, is directed against the order dated 08.06.2015, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1607 of 2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 21.11.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Patiala (for short "the District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No. 256 and, has, thus, dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner. The Complaint filed by the Petitioner, alleging negligence on the part of Respondents/Opposite Parties in not properly treating her for high levels of Serum Cholesterol and swelling around her body, ultimately resulting in damage to the kidney, was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that it was barred by limitation as also a prima facie case of medical negligence had not been made out against the Opposite Parties. When the case came up for hearing on 02.06.2016, regard being had to the circumstances, in which the Complaint; the Appeal; and the present Revision Petition, was filed by post by the Complainant herself and the nature of the controversy involved, we had appointed Mr. Nitin Kr. Gupta, Advocate, as an Amicus Curiae to assist us in the case.

(2.) Accordingly,we have heard the Ld. Amicus Curiae and Dr. Sushil Kr. Gupta, appearing for Respondent No.1. Respondents No. 2 to 4 remain unrepresented. Ld.Amicus Curiae has submitted that having gone through the entire record available before the Fora below and in particular the fact that the Complainant was stated to be suffering from mental disorder, the Fora below should have provided free legal aid to her and an opportunity to file application, explaining the circumstances for delay, if any, in filing the Complaint. Per contra, Dr. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, opposes the said submission mainly on the ground that the present Revision Petition has been signed by the Complainant, which shows that she is in a fit state of mind.

(3.) At this juncture, we may note that in the first instance, the Complainant had made a Complaint to the State Commission by post, seeking redressal of her grievance of the alleged negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. The said Complaint was remitted by the State Commission to the District Forum for adjudication on merits. It is, however, not clear as to why the Complainant filed a fresh Complaint before the District Forum, which was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, resulting in filing of a fresh Complaint, in which the orders impugned in the present Petition have been made.