ORDER (Per : C.C. Pant, Member) These two appeals arise out of the order dated 03.08.2005 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 143 of 2000, directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation and medical expenses and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation within a month from the date of the order. 2. The facts of the case need to be stated in a little more detail considering the issues involved in these appeals. The main facts are that the son of the complainant Sh. Subhash Chandra had fell down from his bicycle on 24.09.1996 and had sustained injuries. He was taken by the complainant to the hospital of Dr. A.K. Sirohi – opposite party No. 1 for treatment. After the examination, Dr. A.K. Sirohi found that the boy had got dislocation of bone and fracture in his left elbow. He applied plaster to it and the boy was admitted in the hospital. After 9 days, he was discharged from the hospital and was asked to come again after one month for removing the plaster. When the plaster was removed, it was found that the left arm of the boy had got deformed. The opposite party No. 1 – doctor did not accept that he has been negligent in treating the boy and instead he said that the arm would come to its shape after some time. 3. The complainant has alleged that due to Dr. A.K. Sirohi’s negligence, the movement of his son’s arm is only from 30° to 110°. This handicappedness has also affected his studies. 4. Narrating the sequence of events, the complainant has said that when Dr. A.K. Sirohi failed to give any satisfactory explanation for the deformity, he took his son to Dr. Deepak Rastogi of Moradabad on 28.11.1996. As per the complainant, Dr. Deepak Rastogi told that the fractured arm was required to be operated on the very day when the boy was admitted in the hospital. The complainant also consulted Dr. Mukesh Jain of Meerut, who also opined the same. 5. The complainant also visited All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi for his son’s treatment on 11.12.1997, where the doctors found that the bone of the left elbow had bulged out, which was causing restricted movement of the arm merely for 40°. The complainant also consulted Dr. Mukesh Jain of Meerut, who also opined the same. 5. The complainant also visited All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi for his son’s treatment on 11.12.1997, where the doctors found that the bone of the left elbow had bulged out, which was causing restricted movement of the arm merely for 40°. The doctors advised that the elbow could be brought to its shape by scratching the bone. 6. The complainant sent a notice to the opposite party through his counsel on 10.08.1998. On receiving the notice. Dr. A.K. Sirohi again started the treatment of the complainant’s son, but he never advised in writing for Physiotherapy. Dr. A.K. Sirohi wrote a letter to Dr. M.S. Tuli of Delhi on 17.09.1998. When the complainant met Dr. M.S. Tuli on 08.10.1998, he advised for operation of the left arm. An estimate of expenditure of Rs. 80,000-90,000/- on operation was given by him with the condition that Rs. 50,000/- be deposited in advance. When the complainant told Dr. M.S. Tuli that Dr. A.K. Sirohi would pay this amount, he refused to do any operation without deposit of fee in advance. 7. When the complainant told Dr. A.K. Sirohi about Dr. M.S. Tuli’s fee and cost of operation, he told him that he would himself treat the boy and restarted the treatment. He continued the treatment for about one and a half year with false assurances, but ultimately he agreed that the deformity in the arm can not be rectified without operation, which he can not do and also agreed to bear the expenses of the operation. He again referred the patient to Dr. M.S. Tuli on 18.04.2000. 8. Since Dr. M.S. Tuli’s condition for operation was to deposit the fee in advance and Dr. A.K. Sirohi had refused to pay any amount, the complainant took his son to Shri Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital & Ayurvedic Research Institute, New Delhi on 08.06.2000. The doctors of Mool Chand Hospital also gave an estimate of Rs. 70,000/- towards operational expenses. When the complainant asked Dr. A.K. Sirohi to make arrangement of Rs. 80,000/- in cash for the operation, he started quarrelling with the complainant and said that he would not pay a single penny against the expenditure. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar on 28.07.2000. 70,000/- towards operational expenses. When the complainant asked Dr. A.K. Sirohi to make arrangement of Rs. 80,000/- in cash for the operation, he started quarrelling with the complainant and said that he would not pay a single penny against the expenditure. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar on 28.07.2000. The complainant has specifically prayed in the complainant that though he has filed the complaint within time, but in case the District Forum finds that the complaint is barred by time, then the delay in filing the complaint may be condoned considering the act of the opposite party No. 1 and the complaint be decided on merit. 9. The District Forum, after appreciating the facts of the case, has partly allowed the complaint in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties have filed these two separate appeals. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order, hence both the appeals are decided by this common order. 10. None appeared on behalf of the complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for Dr. A.K. Sirohi and United India Insurance Company Limited and perused the material placed on record in the light of the legal aspects of the case. 11. The main argument of the learned counsel for Dr. A.K. Sirohi – appellant in First Appeal No. 200/2005 and respondent No. 2 in First Appeal No. 206/2005 is that the consumer complaint filed by the complainant Sh. Subhash Chandra was barred by time and, therefore, the order impugned passed by the District Forum is not legal. According to the learned counsel, the cause of action had arisen on the day, when the plaster was removed and the complainant found that the left arm of the boy had got deformity. The second main argument of the learned counsel was that Dr. A.K. Sirohi had never been negligent in treating the boy and he had made no deficiency in service. Dr. A.K. Sirohi had attended the son of the complainant with due care, skill and diligence and the services rendered by him are without any deficiency. The diagnosis and treatment was correct and the complainant’s son was benefited from the treatment. 12. The learned counsel for Dr. A.K. Sirohi further submitted that Dr. A.K. Sirohi is a qualified and experienced surgeon and is adequately trained to perform the treatment. The diagnosis and treatment was correct and the complainant’s son was benefited from the treatment. 12. The learned counsel for Dr. A.K. Sirohi further submitted that Dr. A.K. Sirohi is a qualified and experienced surgeon and is adequately trained to perform the treatment. Before starting his independent practice in Kashipur, he had been working in L.D. Bhatt Government Hospital, Kashipur from 1988 to 1991. The learned counsel argued that the complainant was required to bring his son for follow-up treatment, which he failed to do. He pointed out to Paper Nos. 27/13 to 27/15 of the original record, wherein Dr. A.K. Sirohi had advised for wax bath and Physiotherapy. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the complainant has wrongly stated that Dr. A.K. Sirohi had not advised in writing for Physiotherapy. After 27.10.1996, as is evident from Paper No. 27/14, the complainant never visited Dr. A.K. Sirohi and thus, his son was not under the exclusive guidance of Dr. A.K. Sirohi for follow-up treatment after this date. He came back to Dr. A.K. Sirohi on 09.09.1998 (Paper No. 27/16) and was advised for “Corrective Osteotomy”. The deformity which could be seen at that time by Dr. A.K. Sirohi, almost after two years, could be due to many other reasons, such as not following the advice for wax bath, Physiotherapy, deposition of calcium at the treated part etc. 13. The learned counsel submitted that the papers submitted by the complainant in respect of the opinion of other doctors do not say that the approach of Dr. A.K. Sirohi in the treatment was not correct and the operation was the only remedy at the initial stage of treatment. 14. The learned counsel for the insurance company reiterated the arguments advanced before the District Forum. On the point that the complaint was barred by time, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following reported decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court : (i) H.P. State Forest Company Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2009) CPJ 1 (SC) (ii) State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I); 2009 AIOL 368 = 2009 Legal Eagle 368. 15. We considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for Dr. A.K. Sirohi and United India Insurance Company Limited. On the point of limitation for filing the complaint, we find force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for Dr. A.K. Sirohi. 15. We considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for Dr. A.K. Sirohi and United India Insurance Company Limited. On the point of limitation for filing the complaint, we find force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for Dr. A.K. Sirohi. The complainant had visited Dr. A.K. Sirohi for the last time on 27.10.1996. After that he had consulted various doctors. The detail of such doctors and advice given by them is as under : (i) 28.11.1996 – Dr. Deepak Rastogi of Moradabad has prescribed some medicines and has advised for active exercise (Paper No. 27/5). (ii) 02.12.1996 – Dr. Rakesh Khare of Moradabad has prescribed “combiflam” and has advised for wax bath and exercise of elbow (Paper No. 27). (iii) 14.01.1997 – Dr. Mukesh Jain of Muzaffarnagar has advised wax bath (Paper No. 27/12). 16. None of these doctors have stated that the boy was wrongly treated and an operation was a must at the initial stage. After January, 1997, there is no evidence that the complainant had consulted Dr. A.K. Sirohi or some other doctor till 11.12.1997, when the boy was examined by the doctors of AIIMS and for the first time, the treating doctor of AIIMS advised for “Corrective Osteotomy” (Paper No. 27/18). 17. On 08.10.1998, the complainant took his son to Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health & Neurosciences. The treating doctor has mentioned in the said paper that elbow range is 40°-150°, but he has also not said that an operation at the initial stage of treatment was necessary. Even for “Corective Osteotomy”, he has advised it hesitatingly (Paper No. 27/19). 18. A careful perusal of these papers shows that the complainant, after the plaster was removed on 19.10.1996, remained under the guidance of Dr. A.K. Sirohi only upto 27.10.1996 and then he started consulting other doctors, which means that he was not satisfied with the treatment given by Dr. A.K. Sirohi and has lost his faith in him. Thus, the cause of action had arisen on 27.10.1996. As the complainant has alleged that the doctors of Moradabad and Meerut had told him that an operation was a must in his son’s case, there does not remain any reason as to why the complainant has not initiated legal proceedings against Dr. A.K. Sirohi within the stipulated time period of two years. As the complainant has alleged that the doctors of Moradabad and Meerut had told him that an operation was a must in his son’s case, there does not remain any reason as to why the complainant has not initiated legal proceedings against Dr. A.K. Sirohi within the stipulated time period of two years. The only explanation in this regard is that he was much worried for his son’s arm’s deformity and consulting one doctor after another. But we find that the complainant has not consulted any doctor after January, 1997 till 11.12.1997. Moreover, when he was told that his son was not treated properly and an operation was a must at the initial stage, he should have contacted Dr. A.K. Sirohi to tell him about the opinion of other doctors. Instead, he re-visited Dr. A.K. Sirohi on 09.09.1998, almost about after two years, when the limitation for filing the complaint was about to expire. Therefore, we are of the view that the complaint was barred by time. Also, we do not find any expert opinion having been filed by the complainant that an operation was the only method of treatment at the initial stage. After two years time, Dr. A.K. Sirohi and some other doctors have advised for “Corrective Osteotomy”, which does not mean that this operation was advised to correct what Dr. A.K. Sirohi had wrongly done at the initial stage. Thus, even on merit, we do not find that the stand taken by the complainant is justifiable. For these reasons, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Forum suffers from illegality and is liable to be set aside. Instead, we are in agreement with the dissenting view expressed by the learned President of the District Forum per his minority order dated 02.08.2005. 19. Both the appeals are allowed. Order impugned dated 03.08.2005 of the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 143 of 2000 is dismissed. No order as to costs. 20. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 206/2005.