THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.32420 of 2025 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar

1. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the order passed in I.A.No.122 of 2025 in C.C.No.567of 2022 dated 11.09.2025 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Commission’) in dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed for reopening, receiving, recalling and for cross examining the Expert evidence, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The facts reveal that the petitioners approached the learned Commission claiming compensation from the respondents to the tune of Rs.5,60,25,936/- towards Medical negligence for causing the death of the petitioners’ son Surya Pratap Bharathi.

3. The petitioners are the parents of Surya Pratap Bharathi, who suffered brain stroke at the age of 30 years and succumbed to medical negligence of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein.

4. Pending adjudication of C.C.No.567 of 2022 by the learned Commission, the petitioners filed I.A. No.66of 2024 for reopening the evidence and to examine P.W.5, and the same was allowed. But the petitioners herein could not produce P.W.5.

5. Later, after conclusion of evidence, the petitioners filed the I.A.No.122 of 2025 under Section 38(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking to reopen the evidence to examine P.W.6 and to recall R.W.3, R.W.5 and Dr. Subhash Kol, expert, for cross examination.

6. The learned Commission after hearing both the parties and examining the material on record held that as per the docket proceedings, previously the petitioners have filed such Interim Application for reopening the evidence for introducing PW5 and witness/expert Dr. Snigdha who is not present for cross-examination and even in the present impugned IA, the petitioners have not produced the witnesses before the learned Commission. Further, the petitioners have not mentioned about critical discrepancies that the patient’s attenders have found that necessitated for the reopening the evidence. The learned Commission also held that seeking multiple reliefs under one Interlocutory Application is not permissible under the law.

7. Heard Smt. Manche Rajashree, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that non-appearance of petitioners’ Expert cannot justify in dismissing the petition, which is filed for recalling respondents’ witnesses and Expert.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the requirement to produce PW6 before the learned Commission is preemptive and reopening of the evidence is necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that dismissing the I.A.No.122 of 2025 defeats the very purpose of Act, which empowers the Consumer Forums to complete the evidence for proper adjudication and denial of fair opportunity. Learned counsel also contends that Act is a beneficial legislation and procedural rigidity cannot frustrate the justice.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that learned Commission erred in holding the application multifarious for seeking interconnected reliefs is contrary to the provisions of the Act.

11. Upon perusal of record, it is evident that the complaint is filed before the learned Commission in the year 2022 and the learned Commission concluded the evidence by providing every reasonable opportunity to substantiate the claim of the petitioners. The record also shows that the petitioners earlierfiled an IA for reopening of evidencefor introducing PW5 and witness/expert (Dr. Snigdha), but they were not present for cross examination.

12. On the other hand after the conclusion of the evidence and when the matter has ripen for written arguments, the present Interlocutory Petition filed with multiple prayers of reopening, receiving, recalling and cross-