Case nº Revision Petition No. 83 Of 2017, (Against the Order dated 03/10/2016 in Appeal No. 712/2016 of the State Commission Maharastra) of NCDRC Cases, May 31, 2017 (case Dr. Mahesh S. Bhatambre Vs Nikhil Mahesh Rodge)

Judge:For Appellant: Mr. Preshit Surshe, Advocate
President:Mr. Dr. B.C. Gupta,Presiding Member and Mr. Dr. S.M. Kantikar,Member
Defense:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b)
Resolution Date:May 31, 2017
Issuing Organization:NCDRC Cases
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

  1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 03.10.2016 passed in First Appeal No. 712 of 2016 by Maharasthra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad, whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal of the complainant.

  2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainant, Master Nikhil was treated by Dr. Mahesh S. Bhatambre (OP) for the complaint of fever on 27.06.2011. He was admitted in OPs hospital from 27.6.2011 to 15.8.2011. At the time of discharge, it was found that the vision of complainant was affected and the OP diagnosed it as Steven Johnson Syndrome. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to Dr. L. V. Prasad, Eye Institute, Hyderabad and treated for a long period i.e. from 2011 to 2014. Finally, on 25.2.2014, the doctors at Hyderabad concluded that Nikhil''s both eyes were affected and he could see upto one meter only. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint for alleged medical negligence on 24.7.2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Latur (hereinafter referred as ''the District Forum'').

  3. The OP filed the written statement and resisted the complaint on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the stipulation time and limitation i.e. more than 11 months and 8 days. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. It has observed that the cause of action took place on 15.8.2011 and as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint should have been filed within two years i.e. till 14.8.2013 but the complaint has been filed on 24.7.2014 i.e. after a delay of 11 months 8 days.

  4. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the complainant preferred first appeal before Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred as ''the State Commission''). The...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL