Limitation Law Applies With Full Rigour | Mistake of Counsel No Automatic Ground for Delay Condonation | Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses to Interfere with National Commission Order
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the refusal of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to condone the delay in filing revision petitions. The court found that the explanation offered by the petitioner, a corporate hospital, failed to demonstrate sufficient cause under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and accompanying procedural regulations. The court recorded that the law of limitation "has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes."
The revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by M/s Indus Hospitals, represented by its chairman, against the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.1380 of 2022. The matter arose out of Consumer Complaint No.102 of 2014 initially filed by Rajeev Lochan Singh before the District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam, against Indus Hospitals and its consultant urologist Dr. Jaya Sai Shekhar B.
The complaint alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service in connection with a surgical procedure to remove kidney stones, seeking compensation of Rs.18,00,000 and Rs.50,000 towards legal expenses. The District Forum allowed the complaint in part, awarding Rs.12,00,000 as compensation and Rs.10,000 for legal costs to be paid by the hospital, while absolving the doctor based on the existence of an indemnity policy.
Aggrieved by the decision, both the hospital and the complainant filed appeals before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In its common judgment dated 01.07.2022, the State Commission dismissed the hospital's appeal and partly allowed the complainant’s appeal by enhancing the compensation to Rs.15,00,000.
Indus Hospitals filed two revision petitions before the National Commission against both the dismissal and enhancement orders. The petitions were filed along with applications for condonation of delay: I.A. No.10112 of 2022 in R.P. No.1380 of 2022 and I.A. No.10412 of 2022 in R.P. No.1417 of 2022.
The National Commission, however, dismissed both applications after contest by the respondent, finding that there was no justifiable reason to condone the delay. Consequently, both revision petitions were also dismissed as barred by limitation.
Thereafter, Indus Hospitals filed the present Civil Revision Petition No.2994 of 2024 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The petitioner submitted that the delay occurred due to misplacement of the entire file by the advocate during travel, which required reapplication for a certified copy of the order. The delay in R.P. No.1380 of 2022 was stated to be 20 days, while in R.P. No.1417 of 2022, the actual number of delayed days was not filled in the application. Clerical errors were also pointed out, including incorrect reference to the appeal number.
The respondent, appearing party-in-person, argued that the limitation period started from 01.07.2022, not from the date of receipt of the order, and that there was no proof or documentation regarding the advocate's alleged loss of the file. He further pointed out that no police complaint or newspaper report substantiated the claim, and the delay was not properly justified.
The court held that the period of limitation would begin from the date of receipt of the certified copy, which was 09.07.2022. Thus, the delay in R.P. No.1380 of 2022 was 20 days and in R.P. No.1417 of 2022 was 30 days.
The court observed that under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, the limitation period for filing revision petitions is 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy. The court cited Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81: "The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."
On the cause shown for delay, the court stated: "Such an averment for the cause in the application, is also vague and not specific. The petitioner, did not disclose the name of the counsel who allegedly misplaced the file in travelling. The date of travelling and the place of travelling has not been stated." The court recorded that there was no written intimation, police report, or public notice about the missing documents.
Citing the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal (2024) 7 SCC 433, the High Court reiterated: "Mere good cause is not sufficient enough to turn back the clock and allow resuscitation of a claim otherwise barred by delay."
The court further relied on Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash (2024 SCC Online SC 3380), stating: "A litigant should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate." It added that clerical errors or mistakes of counsel cannot independently justify condonation of delay without sufficient supporting evidence.
The court found no merit in the challenge and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, stating:
"This Court does not find it a fit case for interference with the order of the National Commission. The C.R.P lacks merit and is dismissed"
No costs were awarded. All pending miscellaneous petitions were declared closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri Suresh Kumar, representing Ms. Ramani Annam
Case Title: M/s. Indus Hospitals, rep. by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam v. Rajeev Lochan Singh
Case Number: C.R.P. No.2994 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
[Read/Download order]
