Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Indus Hospitals, Visakhapatnam – Appellant
Versus
Rajeev Lochan Singh – Respondent
CRP No.2994 of 2024
Decided on : 02-05-2025
Key Points: - The period of limitation for filing revision petitions under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is 90 days from receipt of the certified copy of the order, and regulation 14(1)(i) governs this (!) (!) . - Condonation of delay requires a sufficient cause; length of delay is not the sole determinant, and the Court must apply limitation statutes strictly while allowing a liberal, justice-oriented assessment of sufficient cause within the prescribed period (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The starting point for limitation is the date of receipt of the copy of the order, not the date of the order itself; in this case, receipt was 09.07.2022, making the revision petitions time-barred by 20 and 30 days respectively (!) (!) . - Mere misplacement or negligence by an advocate does not automatically establish a sufficient cause; the litigant must demonstrate vigilance regarding rights and provide credible particulars about the cause (!) (!) . - The High Court upheld the National Commission’s dismissal of the condonation applications and the revision petitions as barred by limitation, reaffirming that public policy requires finality in litigation and that substantial justice cannot override statutory limitation in the absence of a proven sufficient cause (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment reiterates that the law of limitation, including Basawaraj and Pathapati Subba Reddy principles, requires a careful, principled assessment of sufficient cause and disfavors mere technical defects or clerical errors in applications for condonation (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The petition under Article 227 challenging the National Commission’s order is dismissed; the National Commission’s order is not interfered with, and no costs are awarded (!) . - The Delhi High Court CM (M) judgments and subsequent SC principles cited emphasize vigilance, finality, and the strict application of limitation with a liberal approach to sufficient cause only when convincingly shown (!) (!) . - The case clarifies that the absence of explicit days of delay in IA filings does not by itself negate a condonation application if the delay period is otherwise explained and within the last-day requirement of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (!) (!) . - The decision cites multiple precedents on how to evaluate "sufficient cause," including whether delay is due to advocate misplacement vs. litigant diligence and the need to enforce strict adherence to statutory timelines (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the consumer complaint and court proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details about revision petitions filed before the national commission. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments presented by the petitioner regarding delay in filing. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's observations on the legal principles governing delay condonation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. analysis of the sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. legal position regarding the negligence of counsel in delay matters. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 7. final conclusion regarding the dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 45 , 46) |
| 8. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 47 , 48) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel representing Ms. Ramani Annam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Lochan Singh, the respondent (party-in-person).
2. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Indus Hospitals, represented by its Chairman at Visakhapatnam challenging the order dated 20.09.2023, passed in RP No.1380 of 2022, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short, the National Commission).
3. The respondent herein Sri Rajeev Lochan Singh filed a Consumer Complaint No.102 of 2014 against the opposite parties 1 and 2 i.e., (1) M/s. Indus Hospitals, represented by its Chairman and (2) Dr. Jaya Sai Sehkhar B., Consultant Urologist before the District Consumers Forum-II, Visakhapatnam (in short, District Forum) seeking the reliefs to direct them to pay an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and costs for legal expenses towards the alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service in performing the surgery of removing the stones. The opposite parties 1 and 2 in the consumer complaint filed their counter and inter alia denied the material averments. The District Forum, answered the points as framed in favour of the complainant/present respondent and held him entitled for compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- to be paid by the 1st opposite party/the present petitioner-hospital alongwith the costs for legal expenses of Rs.10,000/-. With respect to the 2nd opposite party Doctor, it was held that the complainant was not entitled to claim any amount from the Doctor, there being an indemnity policy between the hospital and the Doctor. Complaint was, thus allowed in part by order dated 24.07.2017 granting 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order for compliance.
4. The hospital and the Doctor both filed FA No.25 of 2018 before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayawada (in short, the A.P. State Commission). The respondent complainant also filed FA No.620 of 2018 being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum. The A.P. State Commission vide common judgment/order dated 01.07.2022 dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner and the appeal filed by the respondent was partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum, and enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/- apart from awarding Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
5. M/s. Indus Hospitals filed two revision petitions before the National Commission. Revision Petition No.1380 of 2022 was filed against the dismissal of the FA No.25 of 2018 and Revision Petition No.1417 of 2022 was filed, partly allowing the First Appeal No.620 of 2018 of the respondent. Both the revision petitions were filed beyond the period of limitation. IA No.10112 of 2022 in RP No.1380 2022 and IA No.10412 of 2022 in RP No.1417 of 2022 were respectively filed for condonation of delay. The aforesaid applications after contest by the respondent were dismissed by the National Commission, which did not find any justifiable reasons to condone the delay and so both the rev
Delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause; litigants must demonstrate vigilance and accountability regarding timely legal action.
The High Court under Article 227 reviews lower tribunal orders focusing on merits and procedural propriety, ensuring sufficient grounds are presented for delay condonation in revisions.
Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the care showing sufficient cause which prevented them to come to the commission.
Limitation – Condonation of delay – Term “sufficient cause” u/Section 5 of Limitation Act should be liberally construed promote substantial justice, when delays are not due to dilatory tactics, bad f....
The court upheld the rejection of a delay condonation application, emphasizing that insufficient reasons do not justify extending statutory limitations.
Delay of 347 days in filing appeals cannot be condoned.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
