Dismissed

Dr. D. Raju v. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Telangana HC29 Mar 2012WP/4845/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a delay condonation application under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, observing that the remedy lies before the National Commission while the State Commission order remained effective.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and WPMP.No.6002 of 2011 were dismissed without any order as to costs.

Dr. D. Raju Vs A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4845 OF 2011

¶4

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶5

A minor boy of 14 years – son of respondents 5 and 6 herein (the complainants) was taken to Primary Health Care Centre (PHC), Dammapet, for treatment of fever. Petitioners 1 and 2 herein (opposite parties 1 and 2) examined the patient and prescribed medicines. After taking medicine, he complained pain in throat and stomach. He was again taken to PHC. Opposite party No.1 advised the complainants to take the patient to Government Hospital, Sattupalli. One Dr. Venkatewarlu, who was working on contract basis, was not on duty and he was allegedly attending to his wife’s clinic. With a referral letter, the complainants took their son to the Government Hospital, Khammam and the third petitioner herein (opposite party No.4) allegedly did not take proper care and the patient died on 30.08.2003.

¶6

The complainants approached the District Consumer Forum, Khammam (District Forum), in C.C.No.12 of 2005 claiming damages for negligence in discharging the duties of doctors. The petitioners opposed. After conducting enquiry, by order dated 11.11.2008, the District Forum allowed the Consumer Case directing the opposite parties 1 to 6 – petitioners 1 to 3 herein and others to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint, besides paying costs of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) being FA.SR.No.1815 of 2009 with a delay of 146 days. The application being FA.IA.No.931 of 2009 for

¶7

condonation of delay was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) on 01.12.2010. This order is assailed in the Writ Petition.

¶8

The counsel for the petitioner would submit that opposite party No.3 in C.C.No.12 of 2005 filed F.A.No.11 of 2009 and the State Commission allowed the same on 30.07.2010 and therefore, dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioners rejecting the application for condonation of delay is erroneous. Per contra, the counsel for respondents 5 and 6 (complainants) would submit that though the appeal filed by opposite party No.3 (respondent No.7 herein) was allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum in respect of opposite party No.3, the rest of the order of the District Forum was confirmed and therefore, the Writ Petition would not lie. A perusal of the order of the State Commission in F.A.No.11 of 2009 would support the contention of the counsel for the complainants. As long as the same stands, the submission that the acceptance of connected appeal must be considered for condonation of delay is without merit. Therefore, as the order of the District Forum has become final, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the National Commission by filing appeal under Section 19 of the Act and also by moving an application under Section 21(b) of the Act against the order impugned in this Writ Petition. In that view of the matter, it is not proper for us to express opinion on merits of the case.

¶9

The Writ Petition, subject to the above observations, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. WPMP.No.6002 of 2011 shall stand dismissed.

¶10

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶11

(G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶12

29^th March 2012 RRB

Dr. D. Raju v. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. D. Raju v. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Lalwani Agricultural and Dairy Farm, rep. by is Vs Akash Enclave Residents Welfare Association, rep. by its

M/s.Anantha Madhava Read Estates and constructions, Vs K.v.Surya Rao

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Vs A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

M/s Sai Surya Stone Crushers, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

The Managing Director (Meda Srinivas), Vs The Honourable A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal

P. Gangadhara Prasad Vs The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank