NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/99/2026 (Against the Order dated 14th September 2023 in Complaint No. SC/23/ORG 07/04 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Madhya pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/1706/2026 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/1705/2026 (FOR GRANT OF STAY)

NC/IA/1707/2026 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Through its tamanna kagra BUSINESS ADDRESS - BLOCK-4, PLATE -A, NBCC OFFICE COMPLEX,KIDWAI NAGAR EAST, DELHI , SOUTH,DELHI.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SHAILENDRA JAIN S/o. LATE DR. R.K. JAIN PRESENT ADDRESS - OPP. MAHAVIR KIRTI STAMBH RAGHUNATH GANJ, , KATNI-483501 , KATNI , KATNI,MADHYA PRADESH.

SMT. ANJALI JAIN W/o. SHILENDRA JAIN PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O OPPOSITE MAHAVIR KIRTI STAMBH, , KATNI , RAGHUNATH GANJ, , KATNI,MADHYA PRADESH.

BUSINESS ADDRESS - OPPOSITE MAHAVIR KIRTI STAMBH, RAGHUNATH GANJ,KATNI. , KATNI,MADHYA PRADESH.

KUM. SAKSHI JAIN D/o. SHIKLENDRA JAIN PRESENT ADDRESS - OPP. MAHAVIR KIRTI STAMBH RAGHUNATH GANJ , KATNI , KATNI , KATNI,MADHYA PRADESH.

AYUSHMAN CHILDREN HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN AND NEONATES Through its PROPRIETOR/PARTNER DR. MUKESH KHARE BUSINESS ADDRESS - RUSSELL CROSSING NAPIER TOWN, , JABALPUR , JABALPUR. , JABALPUR,MADHYA PRADESH.

DR. MUKESH KHARE AYUSHMAN CHILDREN HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN AND NEONATES Through its PROPRIETOR/PARTNER BUSINESS ADDRESS - RUSSELL CROSSING, NAPIER TOWN JABALPUR , JABALPURJABALPUR,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SHASHI NANDKEOLYAR , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

FOR THE APPELLANT MR. ISHWER UPNEJA, ADVOCATE DATED: 24/03/2026

ORDER

1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 21 (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant/opposite party no.3 being aggrieved of the order dated 14.09.2023, passed by the learned Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short the ‘State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 07 of 2004.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the delay condonation application being IA/1706/2026.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay in filing of the present appeal was caused for the lack of proper coordination between the Head Office, Regional Office and the concerned dealing office regarding the requirement of filing an appeal against the impugned order. The internal approval mechanism in a Public Sector Undertaking involves multiple levels of scrutiny. The said delay is purely on account of administrative and communication gaps. He further submitted that during the relevant period while transferring the records from the concerned regional office of the appellant, the case files and connected documents were inadvertently misplaced in the office records. The learned counsel relied upon the following case laws:

1. Kishor Kumar Lal Vs. Sandhya Lala, 2017 (2) CHN (CAL) 218 decided on

06.02.2017

2. Brij Kishore S. Ghosh Vs. Jayantilal Maneklal Bhatt & Ors. AIR 1989 Guj

227 decided on 04.07.1988.

4. Considered the submissions so made and perused the record and also gone through the case laws.

5. There is a reported a delay of 781 days, beyond the prescribed period of thirty days for filing of the appeals.

6. The impugned order was passed on 14.09.2023 and the appeal was filed on 09.12.2025. The copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant on 20.09.2023. The appellant is a company having sufficient wherewithal. The reasons given in the delay condonation application and the submissions made by the learned counsel are not convincing enough to condone a huge delay of 781 days. The case laws cited above by the learned counsel for the appellant are also of no help to the appellant as the facts and circumstances are different.

7. Being a Consumer dispute, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a Consumer Complaint related matter and has to be decided in a