The sufficiency of the cause shown for condoning delay in filing a consumer complaint is paramount, irrespective of the length of the delay involved.

ORDER :

G.Arul Murugan, J.

This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the State Consumer Forum dated 30.09.2025 in R.P.No.37 of 2025, dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioners, thereby confirming the order of the District Consumer Forum dated 28.05.2025 condoning the delay of 95 days in filing of the complaint.

2. The 2^nd respondent/complainant had preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Forum seeking compensation, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners. According to the complainant, she suffered Recto Vaginal Fistula during the delivery of her child at the petitioners hospital. She got readmitted and underwent surgery in petitioners hospital. The problem persisted and as directed by the 2^nd petitioner, she again underwent surgery on 07.10.2022 in Apollo Hospital. The further surgery was also not fruitful. A legal notice was issued on 24.07.2024, but due to her medical condition, she was not able to go out and take steps in preferring the complaint in time and ultimately, the complaint along with the petition was filed with a delay of 95 days.

3. The 2^nd respondent had filed petition seeking condonation of delay of 95 days. The petitioners had resisted the petition contending that the complainant was admitted for delivery of her child in the petitioners hospital on 27.08.2019 and got discharged on 30.08.2019. As such, the complaint ought to have been preferred within 2 years from that date and if so, there is a delay of more than 3 years and 4 months in filing the complaint and petition filed to condone the delay of 95 days is without any basis.

4. The District Consumer Forum, by order dated 28.05.2025 considering the cause shown, condoned the delay. Aggrieved, the petitioners assailed the order in revision before the State Consumer Forum. By the impugned order, the revision came to be dismissed, confirming the order of the District Consumer Forum, which is assailed in the present writ petition.

5. Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint ought to have been filed within a period of 2 years from the date on which the cause of action arose as per Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. When the 2^nd respondent / complainant was admitted and discharged from the petitioners hospital in August 2019, the limitation prescribed for filing complaint would end in August 2021. Even though the Consumer Forums had the power to condone the delay when sufficient cause is shown as per Section 69 (2), but when the actual delay calculates to a period of 3 years and 4 months, the 2^nd respondent only to suppress the actual period of limitation, had conveniently shown as though surgery was performed on 07.10.2022.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that when admittedly 2^nd surgery happened in Apollo Hospital and not in the petitioners hospital, the same cannot be a cause of action which can be taken for calculating the period of limitation. Both the District and State Consumer Forums failed to consider this aspect and had merely taken the delay as 95 days. When no sufficient cause has been shown for the huge delay of more than 3 years, the delay ought not to have been condoned merely by stating it as 95 days and sought for interference of this Court.

7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

8. The short issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the condonation of delay in preferring the complaint is justified.

9. It is not in dispute that the 2^nd respo