In Brief
A widow filed a consumer complaint claiming ₹47+ crore compensation for her husband's death from alleged medical negligence during a mediastinal tumour excision. The hospital failed to file its written response within the 30-day statutory period under the Consumer Protection Act. The consumer commission summarily rejected the late response without considering the delay condonation application. The Supreme Court held that because the order predated a landmark 2020 ruling, the hospital's application for condonation of delay must be decided on merits, not dismissed summarily. The Court directed the commission to reconsider the condonation application based on its substantive merits, reconciling conflicting precedents through a clear cutoff date.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.