Case nº First Appeal No. 36 of 2007 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, July 06, 2011 (case 1. Abraham Koola, 2. Master Sinto Koola S/o Abraham Koola Vs 1. Royal Hospital Rep. Managing Partner Dr. Thomas Mathew, 2. Dr. P. R. George Royal Hospital)

JudgeFor the Appellants: Ms. Amrita Sharma, Advocate and For the Respondents: Ms. Vinita Sasidharan, Advocate
PresidentMr. V. R. Kingaonkar, Presiding Member and Mr. Vinay Kumar, Member
Resolution DateJuly 06, 2011

Court Information NCDRC Cases
Judgment Date 06-Jul-2011
Party Details 1. Abraham Koola, 2. Master Sinto Koola S/o Abraham Koola Vs 1. Royal Hospital Rep. Managing Partner Dr. Thomas Mathew, 2. Dr. P. R. George Royal Hospital
Case No First Appeal No. 36 of 2007
Judges Mr. V. R. Kingaonkar, Presiding Member and Mr. Vinay Kumar, Member
Advocates For the Appellants: Ms. Amrita Sharma, Advocate and For the Respondents: Ms. Vinita Sasidharan, Advocate
Acts Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 19
Prior History Against the order dated 15-8-2005 in OP No.20 of 2000 of the State Commission, Kerala

Order

Mr.Vinay Kumar, Member

1. The Appellant Abraham Koola has challenged the judgment of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in OP NO.20/2000. In the impugned order, the complaint of medical negligence against RoyalHospital and Dr. P.R. George has been dismissed by the State Commission, holding that no negligence can be attributed to the Respondents/OPs.

2. The above order in OP No.20/2000 was passed by the State Commission on 15.8.2005, but the present appeal against this order has been filed on 18.1.2007. Thus, there is a delay of 491 days in filing the appeal. This delay attracts the provision in Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which gives the Appellant a period of 30 days only from the date of the order of the State Commission. However, the proviso to this Section allow this Commission to entertain an appeal filed beyond 30 days, if the Commission is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.

3. We have perused the application filed by the Appellants/Complainants with an explanation of the reasons, which caused this delay. The application is clearly written without any indication of the number of days of delay, which it is seeking to explain. The first ground is that the Appellant is a Teacher under great financial hardship. It took some time to arrange the necessary fund for filing the appeal in time. He had to take loans for the same. This cryptic explanation gives no idea of the Appellant''s understanding of the likely expenses nor does it give any idea of the time taking in arranging the same. The second explanation is that even after arranging the money he could not find a suitable counsel to handle the case in Delhi. He claims to have sent of the case and the Vakalatanama to a counsel on 17.11.2006. This itself was 15...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT