AMICHAND GUPTA (DR ) Vs. MEENA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the impugned judgment dated 7.4.2006 the District Consumer Forum, Varanasi had allowed the complaint of Smt. Meera Devi and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for failure of the tubectomy she had underg one in Primary Health Centre, Chirai Gaon, District Varanasi.

(2.) THE complainant pleaded in her complaint that even after the family planning operation conducted upon her by the female doctor, she had conceived and was thus placed in an awkward condition. She has submitted that she was not economically sound so as to nurse her fifth child but under the circumstances and on account of the negligence on the part of the tubectomy conducting doctor she had to bear the burden of the fifth child. The District Consumer Forum as mentioned above allowed the complaint holding the surgeon guilty of medical negligence and awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000 as compensation.

(3.) MR . Rajesh Chadha, learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the present appeal is barred by time as it was filed more than two years after the impugned judgment. In this context, Dr. Ami Chand Gupta has explained by means of his affidavit that he was never served with the notice of the complaint nor he had an opportunity to contest it and when he came to learn about the impugned judgment he filed a recall application which was rejected on 2.9.2008. The present appeal was filed on 24.9.2008. He came to learn about the ex parte judgment in the third week of March, 2008 when a recovery certificate was served upon him. He immediately filed a recall application but it was rejected on technical ground. There is nothing on record to rebut Dr.Ami Chand Gupta's averment that neither he was served with the notice of the complaint, nor he had an opportunity of hearing in the absence of any kind of knowledge about the complaint. Relying upon his unrebutted version we hold that the present appeal in the circumstances disclosed above is not barred by time.