APHC010342192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 17140 OF 2025 Between: 1. Komma Super Specialty Hospital, Rep. by its Managing Director, D.No. 1/100, 1/101, George Reddy Street, Y.M. Palli, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District, Andhra Pradesh - 516003. 2. Dr. K. Praneeth Reddy, S/o K. Shekhar Reddy, Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, Komma Super Specialty Hospital, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District. 3. Dr. P. Samuel Lenald, Consultant Surgeon, Komma Super Specialty Hospital Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Government of India, Dr Rajendra Prasad Road, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, At New Delhi Represented by the President, Upbhokta Nyay Bhawan, F Block Aviation Colony, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi-110023. 3. The A.P. Represented by its President, 1 Bhavan, Besides SIRIS Company Kanuru, Vijayawada-520007. 4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Old Collectorate Compound, Y.S.R. (Kadapa), 516001. 5. M. Chandra Mohan, S/o M. Krishna Murthy, R/o Door No. 20/9-2, Aakula Street, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District, Andhra Pradesh. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Floor, Sai Towers, Civil Supplies Bandar Road, Ashok Nagar, St ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 07-05-2025 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in RP No. NC/RP/639/2025, and Direct the State Commission to hear the First Appeal No. 614 of 2024 on merits by condoning the delay in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the order dated 12-01-2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kadapa, in CC No. 54 of 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI T. V. P. SAI VIHARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1:THE ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5:— The Court made the following order: Bench Sr.No:-7 [3446] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI APHC010342192025 WRIT PETITION NO: 17140 of 2025 ...Petitioners Komma Super Speciality Hosptial and others Vs. ...Respondents Union of India and others ********** Mr. T. V. P. Sai Vihari Advocate for Petitioners; Advocate for Respondents; CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO : lO^^’ July, 2025. PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ (Oral): DATE A complaint came to be filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kadapa District, alleging medical negligence by the petitioners herein. The said District Forum, by virtue of an order dated partly allowed the complaint and awarded an amount of Rs.4,08,921/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization as compensation in favour of the complainant - respondent No.5 herein. 2. An appeal was filed, belatedly, with a delay of 214 days, before Redressal Commission at Vijayawada, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The said application. 12.01.2024, the State Consumer Disputes 2 HCJ & RRRJ ■ WP_17140 2025 however, came to be dismissed vide order 20.02.2025. The State Consumer Commission in its detailed order held that the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay was bereft of the basic ingredients of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It also held that the petitioners had not shown any cause, much less sufficient cause to condone the abnormal delay of 214 days in preferring the appeal. 3. The petitioners then approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi, by way of a Revision Petition, which too came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2025 and the order of the State Consumer Commission, dismissing the application for condonation of delay upheld. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, yet the Revision Petition was dismissed mechanically. The basis for seeking the condonation of delay was reflected in paragraph 3 of the application filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, which is reproduced hereunder: 5. “3. Apropos, the Ld. DCDRC, Kadapa District, after hearing both the parties disposed the case on merits in favour of the Complainant in C.C.No.54 of 2017 vide order dated 12.01.2024, thereby directing us to pay a compensation to a tune of Rs. 4,08,921/- to the Complainant together with interest @ 6% p.a form the date of filling of the complainant i.e., from 30.06.2017 till the date of realisation, and to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and to pay Rs. 5,000/- 3 HCJ & RRRJ WP_17140 2025 towards costs of the complainant within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the order passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Kadapa District, failing which the opposite parties are also liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. Since our Counsel on record in CC.No.54/2017, having received the copy of the said Order on 20.01.2024, but, had misplaced the same and hence had not informed us about the receipt of the Order Copy from the Hon'ble DCDRC, Kadapa. Thereafter, demands, the Counsel for finally informed about the disposal of CC.No.54/2017 and issued the certified copy in the month 31 Aug 2024. Immediately, we approached an Advocate at Vijayawada for filing the said appeal. However, due to heavy rain and inundation near my Counsel's residence, he could not prepare the ibid ground of appeal in time. Hence, there is a delay of days in filing the said appeal before this Hon'ble Commission.” on our constant On a perusal of the contents of the application as reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that the appellants therein did not either by necessary implication or explicitly state that they were unaware of the passing of the order by District Consumer Forum. It is also clear that the petitioners had not at all reflected the date of actual knowledge of the disposal of the case by the District Consumer Forum and referred only to the date when the certified copy had been issued i.e. on 31.08.2024. As to when the counsel had applied for 6. the certified copy of the order dated 12.01.2024, was also not reflected in the application. The averments thus made in the application were quite vague and general in nature. 7. It is in the backdrop of the aforementioned facts that the State Consumer Commission, while placing reliance upon the Apex Court judgments, among others, in the cases of Ram Lai and Ors. Vs. Rewa HCJ & RRRJ WP 17140_2025 Coalfields Ltd./ Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhia Industrial Development Authority^' and R.B. Ramalingam vs. R.B. Bhuvaneswar/, did not find it a which would warrant the condonation of 214 days delay. fit case, Having gone through the relevant facts of the present case, as also the law on the subject, in our opinion, the view expressed by the State upheld by the National Consumer Commission, 8. Commission, which was cannot be interfered with, as the averments made in the application were in the absence whereof, no sufficient cause can be seen to have been vague, made, which would have warranted the condonation of delay 9. Be that as it may, the writ petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed. ^ AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 2 2011 (14) see 578 ^ 2009 (2) Scale 108 Sdf- M-PRABHAKAR RAO assistant REGISTRY //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, . Sai y\han, Advocate [OPUC] General of India, High Court of A.P. at 1. One CC to Sri T. V. P 2. One CC to the Addl. Solicitor Amaravati[OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies ssb HIGH COURT DATED: 10/07/2025 ORDER WP No. 17140 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS