9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the complaint filed by the respondent was barred by limitation. 2. Interpretation of Sections 12(1), (3), (4), 18, 22, and 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 3. Applicability of the Discovery Rule in medical negligence cases. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the complaint filed by the respondent was barred by limitation: The respondent, a nurse, underwent an `Open Cholecystectomy` on 26.11.1993. She experienced intermittent abdominal pain for about 9 years but did not consult the appellant or any other doctor. In September 2002, a C.T. scan revealed a mass in her abdomen, which was later identified as gauze left during the 1993 surgery. The respondent filed a complaint on 19.10.2004, alleging negligence and seeking compensation. The State Commission dismissed the complaint as time-barred, stating that the cause of action accrued on 30.11.1993, the date of discharge, and the complaint should have been filed within two years. The National Commission reversed this, holding that the cause of action continued due to persistent pain and arose lastly on 25.10.2002 when the second surgery was performed. The Supreme Court held that the respondent's complaint was barred by limitation. Despite her continuous pain, she did not consult the appellant or any other doctor, which was expected of a person of ordinary prudence. The respondent's failure to act diligently for 9 years indicated a lack of bona fides in her claim. Hence, the Discovery Rule could not be invoked, and the cause of action did not accrue in November 2002. 2. Interpretation of Sections 12(1), (3), (4), 18, 22, and 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: The Supreme Court analyzed these sections to determine the admissibility of complaints. Section 12(3) empowers the District Forum to decide the admissibility of complaints, allowing or rejecting them. Similar powers are vested in the State and National Commissions under Sections 18 and 22, respectively. Section 24A(1) mandates that complaints must be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. Section 24A(2) allows for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The Court emphasized that consumer forums are not bound to admit every complaint and can reject those filed beyond the limitation period unless condonation of delay is sought. The forums must record reasons for dismissal, ensuring that the Act's objective of providing speedy and inexpensive redressal is upheld. 3. Applicability of the Discovery Rule in medical negligence cases: The Discovery Rule, evolved in the United States, delays the start of the limitation period until the patient discovers or should have discovered the negligence. The Court cited various U.S. cases where the rule was applied, such as Ayers v. Morgan and Billings v. Sisters of Mercy of Idaho, where foreign objects left in a patient's body were discovered years later. In the present case, the Supreme Court acknowledged the Discovery Rule but found it inapplicable. The respondent, an experienced nurse, should have exercised reasonable diligence by consulting the appellant or another doctor upon experiencing persistent pain. Her prolonged inaction and failure to seek medical advice undermined her claim. The cause of action accrued when she first experienced pain post-surgery, not when the gauze was discovered in 2002. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the National Commission's order, and dismissed the respondent's complaint as barred by limitation. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
|
