M.V.VISWANATHAN, J. - (1.)The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 10th June 2005 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP.No.66/05. The complaint therein was filed alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in treating the complainant?s son at the second and third opposite party hospitals. The opposite parties 1 to 3 were served with notice in OP.No.66/05. The third opposite party remained absent and he was declared ex-parte. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed preliminary written version raising the contention that the complaint is bared by limitation and so the complaint in OP.66/05 is not maintainable. Thereafter, the power of attorney holder of the complainant filed an affidavit dated 16th May 2005 requesting for condonation of delay in preferring the complaint in OP.66/05. It was alleged that the complainant is 88 year old person suffering from various old age problems; that the complainant?s wife is unable to move out of their dilapidated home without support and that his un-married daughter aged 57 is mentally unsound. So, the complainant executed a power of attorney in favour of the deponent C.S.Rajan to file the complaint; that the power of attorney holder is employed at Pune and he is a permanent resident of Pune with his family; that the power of attorney holder was engaged in his family affairs and so there occurred the aforesaid delay in preferring the complaint in OP.66/05. Thus, the power of attorney holder of the complainant requested for condonation of the delay in preferring the complaint in OP.66/05.
(2.)The Forum below was pleased to hear the preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the complaint in OP.66/05. After hearing both parties, the impugned order dated 10th June 2005 was passed dismissing the complaint as the complaint is barred by limitation. It is against the said order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant through his power of attorney holder Sri.C.S.Rajan.
(3.)During the pendency of the present appeal, the original appellant (complainant) died and his legal representatives are impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 8. They were impleaded as per the order dated 20.5.10 in IA.191/10. The additional second appellant is the son of deceased original appellant. Additional third appellant is the widow of the deceased original appellant E.V.Vasu. The additional appellants 4 to 8 are the children of the original appellant E.N.Vasu. The additional appellants have engaged counsel of their choice. Notice was served on respondents 1 to 3 (opposite parties 1 to 3). But, the third respondent/third opposite party remained absent. Respondents 1 & 2 entered appearance through counsel of their choice.