Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

DR. A. SURESH KUMAR & ORS.versusAMIT AGARWAL

Citation
2021 INSC 325
Decided
8 July 2021
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Holding

A Constitution Bench judgment that bars condonation of delay beyond 45 days operates only prospectively and cannot be applied to applications for condonation filed before the judgment was delivered.

Summary

The respondent filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence against Dr. A. Suresh Kumar and others. The appellants filed their written statement 7 days after the 45‑day deadline prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and sought condonation of the delay. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) rejected the condonation on the ground that a recent Constitution Bench judgment (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757) barred condoning any delay beyond 45 days. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution Bench judgment was to operate prospectively; therefore, an application for condonation filed before that judgment must be decided on its merits and cannot be dismissed merely on the basis of the later decision. Consequently, the Court set aside the NCDRC order, condoned the 7‑day delay subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000, and directed the appellants to pay the amount within 15 days, failing which the written statement would be rejected. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the NCDRC could reject an application for condonation of delay on the basis of a later Constitution Bench judgment that the delay beyond 45 days cannot be condoned.
  • Whether the Constitution Bench judgment operates prospectively and thus is applicable to applications filed before its pronouncement.

Legislation cited

Subjects

medical negligenceconsumer protectiondelay condonationlimitation periodprospective operation of judgmentNCDRCSupreme Court

Judgment

                         [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1                             1


                DR. A. SURESH KUMAR & ORS.                             A
                                 v.
                        AMIT AGARWAL
                   (Civil Appeal No. 988 of 2021)
                          JULY 08, 2021                                B
    [VINEET SARAN AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
       Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Claim for medical negligence
against appellant-doctors – Appellants filed reply but with a delay
of 7 days beyond the period of 30+15 days (45 days) – National         C
Commission rejected application for condonation of delay in filing
written statement on the ground that in Constitution Bench
judgment of Supreme Court in *National India Assurance v. Hilli
Multipurpose Cold Storage, it was held that the delay beyond the
period of 30+15 days (45 days) cannot be condoned by National
Commission – Held: It is categorically stated in the CB judgment       D
that it would operate prospectively – In the instant case, since the
application for condonation of delay was filed prior to the CB
judgment, the said application for condonation of delay ought to
have been considered on merits and should not have been dismissed
on the basis of the CB judgment – Order of National Commission         E
set aside – Delay in this case was only for 7 days for which valid
explanation was given – With the consent of parties, delay of 7
days is condoned but on payment of Rs. 25000/- – Limitation –
Delay, condonation of.
      *New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli                    F
      Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (2020) 5
      SCC 757 – followed.
                      Case Law Reference
(2020) 5 SCC 757                  followed             Para 1
                                                                       G
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 988
of 2021.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2020 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in
Interlocutory Application No. 18361 of 2019 in CC No. 480 of 2019.
                                                                       H
                                 1
2            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A        Anand Shankar Jha, Arpit Gupta, Girish Bhardwaj, Abhilash
    Gopinath, Shubham Tripathi, Advs. for the Appellants.
          Amalpushp Shroti, Adv. for the Respondent.
          The following Order of the Court was passed:
B                                ORDER
            The respondent had filed a claim for medical negligence against
    the appellants-Dr. A. Suresh Kumar and others. The appellants filed
    their reply but with a delay of 7 days beyond the period of 30+15 days
    (45 days). The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for
C   short ‘NCDRC’) rejected the application for condonation of delay in
    filing the written statement on the ground that in the Constitution Bench
    judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company
    Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited,
    reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757, it has been held that the delay beyond
    the period of 30+15 day (45 days) cannot be condoned by the NCDRC.
D   However, in paragraph 63 of the said judgment dated 04.03.2020, it is
    categorically stated that this judgment would operate prospectively. In
    the present case, the written statement was filed by the appellants on
    25.11.2019 with an application for condonation of delay of 7 days.
           In our view, since the application for condonation of delay was
E   filed prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench, which was
    delivered on 04.03.2020, the said application for condonation of delay
    ought to have been considered on merits and should not have been
    dismissed on the basis of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case
    of New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) because the said
F   judgment was to operate prospectively and the written statement as
    well as the application for condonation of delay had been filed much
    prior to the said judgment.
          Accordingly, the impugned order of the NCDRC deserves to be,
    and is, hereby set aside.
G         At this stage, learned counsel for the parties have submitted that
    this Court may consider the matter with regard to the condonation of
    delay of 7 days, which has been rejected by the NCDRC.
          Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
    through the record and for the reasons given in the application for
H   condonation of delay filed before the NCDRC and also considering the
      DR. A. SURESH KUMAR & ORS. v. AMIT AGARWAL                             3


fact that the delay was only for 7 days for which valid explanation has      A
been given and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we
condone the delay of 7 days in filing the reply by the appellants before
NCDRC, but on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five
thousand only). The said cost shall be paid by the appellants to the
respondent within 15 days from today. In case, the said payment is not
                                                                             B
made, written statement already filed by the appellants on 25.11.2019
shall not be accepted. However, if the payment is made, the written
statement shall be accepted by the NCDRC and every effort shall be
made by the NCDRC to decide the complaint filed by the respondent
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.
       The appeal stands allowed with the above observations.                C


Devika Gujral                                              Appeal allowed.


                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "medical negligence"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.