STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA,PANCHKUL Revision Petition No.04 of 2021 Date of Filing:05.03.2021 Reserved for orders: 27.10.2025 Date of pronouncement:08.12.2025

1. Director Medanta, the Medicity Hospital, Chaudhary Bakhtawar Singh Road, Sector 38, Gurugram, Haryana 122001.

2. Dr.Rakesh Khazanchi, Chairman- Department Plastic, Aesthetic & Reconstructive Surgery, Medanta-The Medicity Hospital, Chaudhary Bakhtawar Singh Road, Sector-38, Gurugram, Haryana-122001.

3. Dr.Sanjay Mehendru, Senior Consultant, Medanta- The Medicity Hospital, Chaudhary Bakhtawar Singh Road, Sector-

38, Gurugram, Haryana 122001.

. .... Petitioners/Revisionists Versus Yogesh Kumar S/o Late Sh.Nand Kishore, R/o H.No.820/16, Basai Road, Gurugram, District Gurugram.

•• ••• Complainant/Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

Mrs. Manjula, Member Argued by:-Shri Madhukar Pande Meenakshi Do y' Advocate duly assisted by Ms Shri Sikander ~~~s~~unsel for the petitioners. •

r·-----

counsel for responde~~oxy counsel for Shri Kulvir Narwal, -----------------

'

ORDE T.P.S. MANN J This revision petition is preferred by the opposite parties (Petitioners herein) against the order dated 15.02.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint No.129 of 2021 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram, whereby the complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the OPs without any speaking order. The impugned order dated 15.02.2021 is relevant and reproduced below:-

""Present:- Complainant in person Today the case was fixed for condonation on admission. Heard. Admitted. Now notice to OP's be issued for

12.03.2021.

Sd/ Sci/-

Member President, DCDRC, Gurugram, Haryana

15.02.2021"

2. The arguments have been advanced by Shri Madhukar Pandey, Advocate duly assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Dogra, counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Sikander Bakshi, proxy counsel for Shri Kulvir Narwal, counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance the original file including whatever the material has been led on behalf of parties has also been properly perused and examined.

f 3. While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by counsel for the revisionists that learned District Consumer Commission, Gurugram has wrongly admitted the case of the complainant as there .

was a delay of 2008 days in filing the complaint, which is in complete violation of Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The District Consumer Commission while passing the order dated 15.02.2021 ought to have taken into consideration the date of cause of action for filing the complaint. In this case, the death of complainant's wife was on 04.07.2013 in the revisionist hospital, where after the complainant filed a police complaint alleging negligence and the complaint could have been filed within next two years i.e. only .until 04.07.2015. Hence the admission of present complaint without passing a speaking order for condoning the delay of 5 year 7 months and five days (i.e. a delay of about 2008 days) showing sufficient cause for condonation is an illegality. Learned counsel for the revisionist prays that the order dated 15.02.2021 be set aside and allow the present revision after hearing the parties.

4. On the contrary, counsel for the respondent argued that there was a medical negligence on the part of the treating doctors of revisionist hospital and learned District Consumer Commission, Gurugram heard the complainant in person and righty condoned the delay. Learned counsel for the respondent states that learned District Consumer Commission, Gurugram has rightly passed the impugned order dated 15.02.2021.

5. In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is apparent that the learned District Consumer Commission cannot decide the delay without speaking order. The learned District Consumer Commission should have decided firstly the delay of 2008 days with speaking order, which was not so. In this case, the death of the deceased occurred in the year 20