CRP/4022/2026 of The Managing Director Vs K.Jaghada on 22 September 2026

ORDER

The revision petitioners are the opposite parties in a Consumer Complaint filed by the respondent herein, claiming damages, on allegations of medical negligence against the petitioners.

2. Though I had admitted the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and also granted an interim order, besides ordering notice to the respondent/complainant, an objection has been taken with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the Registry also has raised a query with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition. In compliance, the learned counsel for petitioners, relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mavuram Sujatha and Ors, in R.P. No. 1879/24 and stated that the revisional jurisdiction invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can be availed of especially since an order passed by the State Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction arising out of proceedings pending before the District Commission, being not revisable before the National Commission, the aggrieved party can approach the jurisdictional High Court. Based on the said compliance, the Registry has in fact numbered the revision, subject to maintainability. In view of the same, I also directed the counsel on either side to address the question of maintainability along with the merits of the respective claims and objections in the revision petition.

3. I have heard Mr. K.P.Sathishkumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr. S.Gopinath, learned counsel for the respondent. After hearing the counsel on either side, by order dated 10.09.2026, I had directed the Registry of this Court to also call for a report from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North), as to what actually transpired on the first hearing date of the complaint filed by the respondent.

4. In compliance with the order dated 10.09.2026, the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North) has also filed a report before the Registry of this Court on 18.09.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.K.P.Sathishkumar, contends that the order passed by the State Commission is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. He would no doubt fairly concede to the strict compliance required with regard to timelines set out under the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020. However, he would state that when the petitioners were not served with copies of documents that were relied on by the respondent/ complainant, along with the copy of the notice and complaint served on the petitioners on 29.10.2025, the date of reckoning cannot be 29.10.2025, for the purposes of calculating the time period available for the filing of a written version.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.K.P.Sathishkumar, would further state that in fact it was only on 21.11.2025, when the petitioners' counsel was served with complete set of enclosures/ document filed along with the complaint and therefore, the statutory period can be taken to commence from 21.11.2025 and not on 29.10.2025, on which date, only notice along with the copy of complaint alone came to served upon the petitioners. The learned counsel further states that the summons issued by the learned District Commission, in fact, fixed the date of appearance of the petitioners as 14.11.2025. However, on 14.11.2025, there was no sitting and the case was adjourned to 21.11.2025. He would therefore state that the State Commission has not rightly factored these aspects while erroneously concluding that the written version had not been filed within the prescribed period contemplated under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

6. Mr.K.P.Sathishkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, these apart, would also contend that the State Commission also did not appreciate the fact that the version filed by the petitioners was in fact taken on record without any demur or protest by the District Commission and in fact the complaint was posted only for filing of proof affidavit of the complainant and after a lapse of after two months alone, the respondent/ complainant has belatedly chosen to challenge the docket order dated 05.01.2026, by which order, the Commission accepted the version filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.K.P.Sathishkumar, would further state that the petitioners have made out a good case on merits and they should not be deprived of a fair and reasonable opportunity to contest the consumer complaint on merits, especially when serious allegations of negligence have been made against the petitioners. He would further state that, if at all the State Commission had rightly taken 21.11.2025 for the purpose of calculating the period prescribed for filing of version, then the version was admittedly filed within time. In such circumstances, he contends that the revision has to be necessarily allowed and the complaint has to be disposed of on merits.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.K.P.Sathishkumar has relied on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 757, which in fact is a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the respondent, would also, in fact, rely on the very same decision and the ratio laid down therein, to reinforce his contentions that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North), ought not to have accepted the written version filed by the petitioners, since it was belated and admittedly beyond the period prescribed under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

8. Mr.S.Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would further state that as against an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, an appeal remedy is available to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and therefore, when an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioners, then a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is clearly not maintainable. He would therefore state that the Registry has rightly objected to the maintainability of the revision. He further states, in and by way of an argument in demurrer, even if the date which would assume relevance is 21.11.2025, even then, the complaint has been filed on the 46th day, which is again not within the 45 days prescribed under the Act and therefore, even on this ground and angle, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. He therefore prays for the dismissal of revision petition.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels on either side. I have gone through the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission as well as the report called for from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North).

10. Admittedly, the respondent herein, as complainant, filed CC No. 584 of 2025. From the report of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North), the following admitted position comes to light:-

i. The complaint was taken on file on 13.10.2025.

ii. The first hearing of the complaint was on 14.11.2025.

iii. On 14.11.2025, since there was no sitting of the commission, the complaint was posted for hearing on 21.11.2025.

iv. In the meantime, the registry of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North), had issued notices to the opposite parties namely the revision petitioners, along with copies of the complaint. v. On 21.11.2025 on behalf of the petitioners herein, namely the opposite parties before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North), counsel entered appearance by filing of vakalat and collected copies of typeset of papers filed by the complainant.

vi. The complaint was thereafter posted for further hearings on 05.12.2025, 12.12.2025, 26.12.2025 and on 02.01.2026. On all these hearing dates, the complaint was adjourned only for the purpose of the petitioners filing their written version. vii. On 05.01.2026, the opposite parties who had been represented by counsel filed their written version, after serving a copy of the same on the complainant’s counsel, who was also present. The report specifically mentions the fact that the complainant’s counsel received a copy of the written version without any protest, though this fact is denied by the Counsel for the respondent. viii. The written version was received on 05.01.2026 in view of the

intervening holidays and the complaint was thereafter posted for filing of proof affidavit, along with documents on 19.01.2026.

ix. Thereafter, the complainant has preferred a revision before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, challenging the docket order dated 05.01.2026, questioning the very receipt of the written version, after the statutory 45 days period.

11. Keeping the report of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North) in mind, I will first proceed to address the question of maintainability of the revision petition. According to Mr. S.Gopinath, learned counsel for the respondent, the impugned docket order dated 05.01.2026, which was challenged by the respondent/ complainant before the Hon’ble State Commission was set aside, clearly rendering a finding that notice along with the copy of the complaint was served on the petitioners on 29.10.2025 and therefore, the written version has not been filed within the statutory period of 45 days. Relying on Sections 51 and 58 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Mr. S.Gopinath, learned counsel for the respondent, invited my attention to S. 58(1)(a)(3) and contends that as against orders of any State Commission, appeals lie before the National Commission and therefore, when the statutory scheme of the Act provides for an appeal remedy, the petitioners cannot bypass the same and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. Meeting the question of maintainability, Mr.K.P.Sathishkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that though Section 58 provides for filing of an appeal against orders of any State Commission, before the National Commission, the mere availability of an appellate remedy under the statute, cannot in any way take away the special and extraordinary right vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere, when there has been gross miscarriage of justice, perversity or failure to exercise jurisdiction vested or erroneous assumption of jurisdiction not vested. It is the further submission of Mr.K.P.Sathishkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, that in terms of the ratio laid down by the National Commission in Vivo’s case (referred herein supra, while extracting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners), when the State Commission was exercising only revisional jurisdiction, and the matter was pending before the District Commission, any such order that may be passed by the State Commission in exercise of such revisional jurisdiction does not provide for further revision for the aggrieved party. Therefore, a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. Section 51 provides for appeals to be filed before the National Commission by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of powers conferred under sub clauses (i) or (ii) of Section 47(1)(a), within a period of 30 days from the date of the impugned order. Though the National Commission is well within its powers to entertain an appeal under Section 51, even beyond the said period of 30 days, I do not deem it necessary to deliberate further on this issue since admittedly the petitioners have not chosen to prefer an appeal before the National Commission and instead have only approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Act pertains to complaints where the value of the goods or service paid as consideration, exceeds Rs.1 crore, but does not exceed Rs.10 crores. Sub clause (ii) relates to complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed a sum of Rs. 10 crores. Therefore, from a combined reading of Section 47 read with Section 51 providing for appeals to the National Commission, I find that it only pertains to the pecuniary jurisdiction and orders passed in circumstances that have been set out in sub clauses (i) and (ii) Section 47(1)(a) alone and not with regard to appeals from any other orders. Therefore, the present impugned order being one revising a docket order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, it will certainly not fall within the ambit and scope of Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

13. Coming to Section 58, which is the other section relied on by Mr.Gopinath, learned counsel for the respondent, dealing with the jurisdiction of the National Commission, Section 58 also firstly pertains to the pecuniary jurisdiction for entertaining complaints before the National Commission. It also provides for appeals against any orders of the State Commission. In this context, it is pertinent to examine the phraseology employed in Section 58 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Section 58 (1) starts with the following “Subject to the other provisions of the Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction….”

14. At the same time, it is also to be borne in mind that the statute does not provide for an express revisional power being conferred on the State Commission. However, Section 47(1)(b) deals with the power of the State Commission to call for records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending or decided by the District Consumer within the state, where it appears to the State Commission that the District Commission has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. This power under Section 58 (1)(b) has been exercised by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the instant case. However, as already seen, such an order is not appealable to the National Commission under Section 58. It is only under such circumstances that the National Commission itself in Vivo Mobiles’ case (referred herein supra), held that when the State Commission exercises a revisional power, then an order in exercise of such revisional power cannot be challenged before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the aggrieved party is well within his/her/its right to move the High Court concerned under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

15. In light of the above discussion, I am unable to countenance the arguments of Mr.S.Gopinath, learned counsel for the respondent, that the revision is not maintainable. For all the above reasons and detailed discussions hereinabove, I hold that the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to be maintainable.

16. Coming to the merits of the revision petition and the objection with regard to the manner in which the District Consumer has permitted the opposite parties to file the written version beyond 45 days, both the counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent have placed reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited’s case (referred herein supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision, while deciding the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986, referring to sub sections to 2(a) and 2(b) of Section 13 of the Consumer Act, 1986 read with Regulation 10 of Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2005, held that on service of a copy of complaint, the period of limitation for filing the response by the opposite party would commence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also drew a parallel to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the defendant to file a written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of service of summons. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though the commencing point of limitation would be 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the complaint along with a notice and not merely receipt of notice, the opposite party on whom the copy of the complaint is not served, should raise the objection on the first date itself and not thereafter as otherwise, it would defeat the very purpose of the Act, which was to provide a simple and speedy redressal of consumer disputes. Ultimately, the question that was required to be answered by the Constitution Bench as to whether the District Commission had the power to extend time for filing the response of the opposite party to the complainant, beyond the period of 45 days in all, as envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was answered holding that the District Consumer had no power, beyond 45 days from the date of receipt of notice accompanied with the complaint and not merely receipt of notice to receive the version of the opposite party.

17. Firstly, it must be noticed that before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as already discussed hereinabove, the question was whether the District Commission had the power to extend time to file written version of the opposite party beyond the statutory period of 30 days and a further grace period of 15 days, which is provided under Section 13 of the 1986 Act. It is in this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the District Commission does not have the power to receive the written version beyond 45 days. The facts on hand however, are standing on a different footing altogether. It is the case of the petitioners that they received the copy of the complaint along with the notice for the hearing on 14.11.2025. However, it is their grievance that the documents that were enclosed along with the complaint were not served on the petitioners or received by them and therefore, they were handicapped to prepare the written version.

18. As regards the hearing on 14.11.2025, admittedly there was no sitting of the District Commission and therefore, there was really no occasion for the petitioners to have put across their objection with regard to non-receipt of the enclosures/documents along with the consumer complaint. However, on the very next hearing date on 21.11.2025, they have received the documents and on the very same day an endorsement acknowledging the receipt of the annexures to the complaint was also made by the counsel for the opposite parties. Going back to Regulation 10(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, it requires the complainant, along with the notice, to enclose copies of the complaint, memorandum of grounds of appeal, petitions as the case may be and the other documents to be filed to be served upon the opposite parties. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioners were served with copies of the documents only on 21.11.2025 and there was no

occasion also, for them to raise the said objections on 14.11.2025, namely on the first hearing date of the complaint, since there was no sitting of the Commission. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it was only 21.11.2025 on which date alone the petitioners received the copies of documents that were enclosed along with the complaint against the opposite parties. In such circumstances, especially when the respondent alleges medical negligence against the petitions, if which proved, would cause irreparable hardship, loss and prejudice to the petitioners/ opposite parties, it becomes all the more important and necessary that documents filed in support of the consumer complaint should also be served on the opposite parties, to enable them to effectively meet the allegations of negligence, by filing their written version. Therefore, admittedly when the documents were received by the petitioners only on 21.11.2205, the date of reckoning of the 45 days period of limitation for filing the written version has to necessarily be 21.11.2025 and not 14.11.2025. Coming to the next aspect with regard to the written version being filed on the 46th day and not 45th day, there is no dispute that on 21.11.2025 the copies of documents were served on the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioners that the 45th day fell on 05.01.2026 on which date admittedly the written version has been filed. However, Mr. S.Gopinath, learned counsel for the respondent/

complainant, would contend 05.01.2026 would actually be the 46th day and therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble constitutional bench in New India Assurance Company Limited’s case (referred herein supra), the District Commission ought not have received the written version.

19. Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 deals with commencement and termination of time. It applies to all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of General Clauses Act, 1897. In terms of Section 9, the first in a series of days or any other period of time shall be excluded and the last in a series of days or any other period of time shall be included. Section 10 deals with computation of time and states that if the Court Office is closed on the last day of the prescribed period, then the act or proceedings shall be considered to be as done or taken in due time, if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards of which, the Court or Office is open. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarun Prasad Chatterjee vs. Dinanath Sharma, reported (2000) 8 SCC 649, applied the provisions of General Clauses Act to an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and held that the first day for the period of limitation will have to be excluded and proceeded to find the election petition being filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the statutory provisions namely, Sections 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, I have already come to a conclusion that the date of reckoning will have to be 21.11.2025, 21.11.2025 has to be excluded being the first day of the series of dates. That leaves nine days in November, 2025 and thirty one days in December, 2025. 4th January, 2026 happens to be a Sunday and therefore, the filing of the written version on the very next day, on 05.01.2026, is certainly in time and within the statutory period 45 days. The argument of Mr.S.Gopinath, learned counsel for the respondent, that 21.11.2025 has to be included, even though it was an argument in demurrer, has no force in law in view of the express provisions incorporated under the General Clauses Act, 1897.

20. For all the above reasons, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission clearly fell in error in being swayed by the ratio laid down in New India Assurance Case, holding that the District Commission cannot accept the written version beyond a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice, without appreciating the fact that Regulation 10(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, requires not only the copy of the compliant but also the documents to be served on the opposite party, without which the opposite party will not be in a position to effectively meet the allegations in the complaint. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere and set aside the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission dated 18.06.2026.

21. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North), shall take up further proceedings and dispose of CC No. 584 of 2025 within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order after providing fair and reasonable opportunity to both parties, in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs. 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North).

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP CRP No. 4022 of 2026 and CMP. No.17602 of 2026 22-09-2026