https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183420 The Supreme Court held that the respondent's complaint was barred by limitation as she failed to act diligently for 9 years despite experiencing continuous pain post-surgery. The Court emphasized that the Discovery Rule could not be invoked due to the respondent's lack of reasonable diligence in seeking medical advice. The Court also clarified the interpretation of various sections of the Consumer Protection Act, highlighting the importance of filing complaints within the limitation period. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the National Commission's order, and dismissed the respondent's complaint, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. en-us Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2016 17:36:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183420 The Supreme Court held that the respondent's complaint was barred by limitation as she failed to act diligently for 9 years despite experiencing continuous pain post-surgery. The Court emphasized that the Discovery Rule could not be invoked due to the respondent's lack of reasonable diligence in seeking medical advice. The Court also clarified the interpretation of various sections of the Consumer Protection Act, highlighting the importance of filing complaints within the limitation period. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the National Commission's order, and dismissed the respondent's complaint, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183420