AMARJIT SINGH Vs. LUDHIANA STONE CLINIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum, Ludhiana vide order dated June 13,1997 dismissed the complaint filed by Amarjit Singh as barred by time that he is in appeal.

(2.) Amarjit Singh was having stone in the kidney that he was taking treatment from opposite party No.1-Ludhiana Stone Clinic. After operation the stone was removed and the complainant was discharged on June 1, 1993. Subsequently on June 9, 1995 on a fresh X-ray conducted the complainant detected another stone in the kidney that he approached opposite party No.1. Second time a sum of Rs.35,000/- was demanded for operation which was not paid and no operation was performed. The complainant on June 19, 1996 approached the District Forum claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac and refund of Rs.35,000/- earlier charged for the operation alleging that the same was not successful and the formation of the stone persisted. On the written version submitted by opposite party No.1 objection was taken regarding the limitation, which prevailed with the District Forum.

(3.) Consumer Protection Act was amended with effect from June 18,1993 and Sec.24-A was inserted providing limitation of two years for filing the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. It further provided for condoning delay in filing the complaint on proof of sufficient cause for non-filing the complaint within time. It may be observed that before amendment aforesaid the period of three years as provided under the provisions of the Limitation Act was made applicable and the complaints could be entertained by the FORA within three years from accrual of cause of action. In the present case the cause of action accrued on June 1,1993 when the complainant was operated and discharged from the clinic of opposite party No.1. Taking three years period of limitation as on the date the cause of action accrued, the amendment provision had not come into force, the complaint filed on June 19,1996 was also barred by time. No cause was otherwise shown for condoning the delay. The District Forum took up the period of two years limitation as provided under Sec.24-A of the Consumer Protection Act while holding the complaint to be barred by time. However, that approach is not correct. The complaint is otherwise barred by time, which is liable to be dismissed. The contention of Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate that in the absence of any finding as to whether any stone was removed in June, 1993, the cause of action would continue to accrue and the complaint could not be held barred by time, cannot be accepted. After hospitalisation the complainant was discharged on June 1,1993 and whether any operation was performed or not and if performed it was unsuccessful or no stone was removed, the cause of action accrued and the complaint ought to have been filed within three years there from. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint being barred by time is affirmed.