WP/35325/2026 of Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre Vs P.D.Audikesavalu on 1 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) The writ petitioner herein, who is facing consumer complaint initiated by the representative of the aggrieved patient, is before this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chennai, to dispose of the pending Revision Petition No. 17 of 2026, arising out of the order passed in I.A. No. 4 of 2026 in CC No. 389 of 2025, without being influenced by the observations made in paragraph 20 of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order dated 14.05.2026, which arose from a transfer application filed by the writ petitioner.

2. In short, the Transfer Application before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission was filed on the apprehension that the State Consumer Forum may not be able to render justice impartially, since the complainant is the representative of a sitting Judge of the Madras High Court. While disposing of the said transfer application, the NCDRC transferred the pending consumer complaint from the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission South, Chennai, to the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission North, Chennai. The NCDRC also made a specific observation that no opinion on the merits of the controversy pending before the District Commission was being expressed and any observations made therein were confined solely to the adjudication of the transfer application.

3. In the said circumstances, the writ petitioner who had pursued I.A. No.4 of 2026, filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission dated 14.05.2026. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition with an observation that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before the jurisdictional High Court as per dictum laid down in M\s.Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Vs. Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court left open for the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court. Citing the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present writ petition has been filed for the relief stated above.

4. Paragraph 20 of the order dated 14.05.2026 passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in the Transfer Application No. 3 of 2026 reads as below:-

“20. So far as the contention regarding proposed cross-examination of the Respondent is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that such circumstance by itself cannot justify transfer of the proceedings outside the State. The District Commission is competent to regulate its own procedure in accordance with law. If the necessity of cross-examination arises, appropriate modalities may be evolved by the concerned Commission, including permitting the same through video conferencing or by adopting any other legally permissible procedure such as cross-examination on commission at any local venue preferably the own residence of the Respondent, which may also be video recorded, for ensuring fairness to both the contesting sides.” A plain reading of the above paragraph, according to the writ petitioner, carries an influential meaning to the Court below.

5. We find no such imputation. It is settled principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Even otherwise, it goes without saying that observations made by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in an Interlocutory Application will not have any bearing on the final decision on merits. More so in this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while examining the order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in SLP preferred by the writ petitioner, not expressed any opinion on merits. It is also pertinent to note that the National Commission, in its penultimate paragraph, had made it clear that its observations were confined only to considering the merits of the transfer application and not otherwise.

6. In our opinion, the present writ petition is needless. Nonetheless, since the petitioner has approached this Court expressing certain apprehensions, we dispose of the writ petition with the observation that the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, which is considering Revision Petition No. 17 of 2026 filed by the writ petitioner, shall pass orders on merits by assigning its reasons, without any reference to paragraph 20 of the order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission dated 14.05.2026.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs. (Dr.G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 01.09.2026 Neutral citation :Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking rpl/aj

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J. and E.MANOHARAN J. rpl/aj Writ Petition No.35325 of 2026 and W.M.P.No. 39262 of 2026 01.09.2026