- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44641-DB WP No. 665 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 665 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SANDYA VAIDYANATHAN W/O. VAIDHYANATHAN VENKATARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/A FLAT A202 UKN ESPERANZA, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, THUBRAHALLI, BANGALORE 560066 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT B23, PATTERNS B GOOD EARTH MALHAR KAMBIPURA POST, BANGALORE 560074 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR. UMA MAHESHWARI HAVING OFFICE AT CLOUDNINE FERTILITY- J.P NAGAR, NO. 250, OPP. NANDHINI HOTEL, 24TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560078 2. KID CLINIC INDIA PVT. LTD. HAVING OFFICE AT 1533, THE CRADDLE, 9, 3, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 BOTH PLACED EX-PARTE BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44641-DB WP No. 665 of 2025 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARCHANA K.M., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IN APPEAL No-1420/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for brevity 'the State Commission) , Bangalore, in Appeal No.1420/2019. 2. The petitioner had filed a Consumer Complaint No.234/2017 before the First Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore. The said complaint came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2017 for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44641-DB WP No. 665 of 2025 non-prosecution. Against the said order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the District Commission, the petitioner had filed the Appeal No.1420/2019 before the State Commission. However, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal observing as under :- "7. We are of the opinion that the complainant shown the negligence before the District Commission to file the affidavit evidence inspite of sufficient opportunities provide. The District Commission had adjourned the matter under equity and post it for 14.07.2017 as a final chance and even on that day, the complainant was not present. The reasons assigned by the complainant for non-appearance is not satisfactory. The complainant also not produced any materials to show that the advocate has taken the wrong date inadvertently. We are of the opinion that the complainant had deliberately not appeared before the District Commission which resulted in dismissal of the complaint. The grounds urged before this commission for setting aside the dismissal order is only under guess. No valid reasons noticed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. Accoridngly, ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44641-DB WP No. 665 of 2025 Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not appear only once before the District Commission and for non-appearance for one time, the District Commission dismissed the appeal. The State Commission has not considered the facts and circumstances of the above case and has wrongly recorded that the petitioner failed to appear before the District Commission. 4. For non-appearance on one time, the District Commission has dismissed the appeal and the State Commission ought to have interfered with. It is further submitted that the District Commission does not have the power to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact of serious allegations against the respondent's negligence, we deem it appropriate to give liberty to the petitioner to file review petition before the State Commission - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44641-DB WP No. 665 of 2025 seeking review of the impugned judgment and order dated 01.06.2024 and we are of the view that the State Commission should examine the facts and circumstances of the case, while deciding the review petition, if so filed, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid liberty we dispose of this writ petition. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27