Timely judgment pronouncement by courts, especially in consumer disputes, is essential for justice, and undue delays violate legal principles.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

2. This is an unfortunate case where the Petitioner has been forced to come to Court due to non-pronouncement of orders/judgment by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter `NCDRC').

3. The Petitioner has filed a complaint before the NCDRC alleging negligence by the doctors and hospital - Kanpur Medical Centre Private Ltd., Kanpur, UP (hereinafter, `Hospital'), due to which severe burns were caused to her as a newly born infant. The complaint was filed before the NCDRC in April, 2006. It has been more than 15 years since the complaint is pending.

4. The matter was first argued before the NCDRC on 13th August, 2018 and was reserved for orders. The said order reads:

"Arguments heard. Order reserved."

After a lapse of about seven months, i.e., on 26th March, 2019, the matter was reopened and listed for final hearing once again. The said order reads:

"This matter needs further consideration with the presence and arguments of learned counsels from both sides.

List for final hearing on 17.07.2019.

Meanwhile, all the parties are directed to file their extant briefs of written arguments, if they so wish, in terms of Regulation 13 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 at least four weeks before the next date of hearing with copies in advance to each other.

All parties be informed by the Registry within ten days."

Thereafter however, the matter was repeatedly adjourned. Arguments were finally heard on 15th January, 2020 and the matter was reserved once again. The said order reads:

"Heard arguments of the learned counsels for the parties present except OP-1-Dr. Neelam Mishra, Gynecologist.

Order reserved."

Even after a lapse of more than one year, orders are yet to be pronounced in this matter.

5. Mr. Bajaj, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that repeated enquiries have been made with the NCDRC but to no avail. On 2nd December, 2020, an application was moved by the Petitioner seeking re-hearing and pronouncement of judgment, despite which, the matter has not been listed before any Bench. Repeatedly following up with the Registry has also not borne any result. Ld. Counsel fairly submits that he has now received intimation that the application is now listed on 23rd February, 2021.

6. The Supreme Court has, repeatedly, in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 and Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [Civil Appeal No. 3564/2020, decided on 29th October, 2020] emphasised the importance of timely pronouncement of judgments and orders once submissions are heard. The said judgements were also considered by this Court in Deepti Khera v. Siddharth Khera, [CM (M) 1637/2019, decided on 18th November, 2019], The observations in Deepti Khera (supra) where Anil Rai (supra) is also extracted are set out below:

"6. It is the settled position in law, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 that once matters are reserved for orders, usually, the same should be pronounced within a time schedule. In Anil Rai (supra) it has been observed as under:

"8. The intention of the legislature regarding pronouncement of judgments can be inferred from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (1) of Section 353 of the Code provides that the judgment in every trial in any criminal court of original jurisdiction, shall be pronounced in open court immediately after the conclusion of the trial or on some subsequent time for which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. The words "some sub