STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI REVISION PETITION NO.RP/25/96 (Arising out of the order dated 06/10/2025 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no.CC/22/557)

1. Lotus Eye Hospital

13^th N.S.Road, Opp. Juhu Bus Terminus Juhu, Mumbai 400 049

2.Mr.Navin H. Shah Chairman & Managing Trustee Lotus Eye Hospital

13^th N.S.Road, Opp. Juhu Bus Terminus Juhu, Mumbai 400 049

3.Dr.Prerana Tahiliani Doctor, Lotus Eye Hospital

13^th N.S.Road, Opp. Juhu Bus Terminus Juhu, Mumbai 400 049 ....... Revision Petitioners / Org.OPs Versus Ms.Usha Varma R/o. A/301, Yash Apartment ………Respondent/org.complainant Chakradhar Nagar Nalasopara (West)

District Palghar 402 203 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Adv N.D.Jaywant for the revision petitioners.

Respondent present in person.

ORAL ORDER (Dt.18/03/2026)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners against the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban as on 06/10/2025, in consumer complaint no.CC/22/577. the Ld. District Consumer Commission closed the evidence of the present revision petitioners (opponents) without granting reasonable opportunity to the present revision petitioners and without permitting the opponents to conclude their case in accordance with the law, thereby the complaint was proceeded without evidence of the opponents by the Ld. District Consumer Commission. The revision petitioners being aggrieved with the said order, preferred this revision petition for setting aside the impugned order dated 06/10/2025 and prayed for to permit the present revision petitioners to file their evidence by way of filing affidavit in examination in chief.

2. The present revision petitioners have preferred the ground that in the revision petition that the Ld. District Consumer Commission has summarily declined the right of the opponents to tender their evidence and the matter was adjourned for filing written notes of arguments.

3. It is further contended in the grounds of revision petition that affidavit of evidence was already served on the other side. Only technical affirmation and signature in the presence of authority /counsel was pending, which the Commission was duly informed about.

4. It is further contended that closure of evidence has severely prejudiced the defence as the opponents have now been denied a meaningful opportunity to substantiate their defence by way of affirmed oral and documentary evidence, directly impacting a fair trial. Therefore, the revision petitioner has requested and made a prayer that the impugned order may be set aside and the opportunity be granted to the revision petitioner to file their evidence in the original consumer complaint.

5. The notice of this revision petition was issued to the respondent. The respondent appeared and filed written objections, wherein it is contended that after filing of evidence of the respondent/original complainant, the petitioner has sought 4 dates for filing their evidence. The petitioners were seeking adjournments from time to time by putting excuses. It is contended that as per section 38(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, every consumer complaint is to be decided within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by the opponent. In the present case, the petitioners are trying to prolong the matter. Therefore, the present revision petition is filed to prolong the trial. The matter is going on for the last three years and the respondent/original complainant is appearing in person and she has to take leave on each date. The Ld. District Consumer Commission has rightly passed an order by exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, it does not require any interference. It is contended that the present revision petition be dismissed with costs.

6. Heard argument of both the sides. It is contended by the revision peti