The High Court · 2025

Enclave, Anand Nagar, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011, Rep. by its CEO Sri Bharat Kumar Anagani.

5. Continental Hospital, Plot No.3, Road No.2, lT and Financial Dist, Nanakramguda,'Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana 500032, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director.

6. Dr. Kailas Mirche, Consultant Neurologist, Continental Hospital, Gachibowli, Hyderabad -32. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, calling for records in l.A. No.12212025 in C.C. No.567/2022 on the file of Respondent No.1 and quash the impugned order dated 11.O9.2025. and allow l.A. No.1 22t2O25, permitting filing chief evidence affidavit of PW6 and recalling RW3, RWs, and Dr. Subash Kaul (Expert opinion) for cross-examination. lA NO: 1 OF 20 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings in CCl56712022 pending before the 1st Respondent till the disposal of this writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. RAJASRI MANCHE Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6:----- The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HON,BLE JUSTICE MOUSIIUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR ORDER: Qter Hon'ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)

1. The present writ Petition is filed assailing the order passed in I.A.No. 1.22 of 2025 in c.c.No.567of 2022 dated ll.o9'2025 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short .the commission') in dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed for reopening, receiving, recalling and for cross examining the Expert evidence' as itlegal and arbitrary.

2. The facts reveal that the petitioners approached the learned compensation from the respondents to the tune of Commission Rs.5,60,2 5,9361- towards Medical negligence for causing the death of the .claiming petitioners' son Surya Pratap Bharathi'

3. The petitioners are the parents of Surya Pratap Bharathi, who suffered brain stroke at the age of 30 years and succumbed to medical negligence of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein'

4.PendingadjudicationofC.C.No.56Tof2022bythelearned commission, the petitioners filed I.A. No.66of 2024 for reopening the : I I I :,, J t, I I I I i, i- i i j, t t. 2 evidence and to examine P.w.5, and the same was allowed. But the petitioners herein could not produce P.W.5.

5. r,ater, after conclusion of evidence, the petitioners filed the I.A.No.l22 of 2025 under Section 38(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short 'the Act') seeking to reopen the evidence to examine p.w.6 and to recall R.w.3, R.w.5 and Dr. Subhash Kol, expert, for cross examination

6. The leamed Commission after hearing both the parties and examining the material on record held that as per the docket proceedings, previously the petitioners have filed such Interim Application for reopening the evidence for introducing PW5 and witness/expert Dr. Snigdha who is not present for cross-examination and even in the present impugned IA, the petitioners have not produced the witnesses before the learned Commission. Further, the petitioners have not mentioned about critical discrepancies that the patient's attenders have found that necessitated for the reopening the evidence. The leamed Commission also held that seeking multiple reliefs under one Interlocutory Application is not permissible under the law.

7. Heard Smt. Manche Rajashree, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 . 3 ..;;:{'" g. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that non-appearance of petitioners' Expert cannot justiff in dismissing the petition, which is filed for recalling respondents' witnesses and Expert' g. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the requirement to produce Pw6 before the learned commission is preemptive and reopening of the evidence is necessary' Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that dismissing the I.A.No.l22 of 2025 defeats the very purpose of Act, which empowers the Consumer Forums to complete the evidence tbr proper adjudication and denial of fair opportunity' Learned counsel also contends that Act is a beneficial tegislation and procedural rigidity cannot frustrate the justice'

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that learned commission erred in holding the application multifarious for seeking interconnected reliefs is contrary to the provisions of the Act' I t. upon perusal of record, it is evident that the complaint is filed before the leamed Commission in the year 2022 and the learned Commission concluded the evidence by providing every reasonable opportunity to substantiate the claim of the petitioners. The record also shows that the petitioners earlierfiled an tA for reopening of evidencefor introducing PW5 and witness/expert (Dr. Snigdha), but they were not present for cross examination. 4

12. On the other hand after the conclusion of the evidence and when the matter has ripen fbr written arguments, the present Interlocutory Petition filed with multiple prayers of reopening, receiving, recalling and cross- examination of the Expert witness, is admittedly not pennissible under the law. Even otherwise lbr entertaining such case which has multiple and distinct reliefs, it requires a separate consideration such as examining the witness as we[ as documents.

13. Further, the petitioners have not substantiated any material irregularity or vital discrepancy that necessitates the reopening of evidence. The alleged inconsistencies, even if assumed, pertain merely to ancillary aspects such as attendance records or identification particulars, which do not materially affect the core issues under adjudication. The learned Commission has already provided ample opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses, and therefore, no prejudice can be said to'have been caused.

14. This Court is of considered view that repeated Interlocutory Applications at successive stages of the proceedings tend to protract the trial and defeat the very object of expeditious disposal of cases envisaged under the Act. The reasons recorded by the learned Commission are neither perverse nor arbitrary and are based on sound procedural principles. 5 ,/ .r'4' ,).;" 15. The contention of the petitioners that the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application deprives them of a fair opportunity of hearing is misconceived. The record reveals that sufficient opportunity was already extended for adducing evidence, and any grievance concerning appreciation of evidence or alteged discrepancies, can appropriately be urged at the stage of final arguments before the leamed Commission'

16. Hence, the learned Commission has exercised its discretion judiciously, and the impugned order does not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. t7 Accordingly, W.P.No.32420 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs SD/- G. JYOTHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR l-7 SECTION OFFICER /TRUE COPY/ To,

1. One CC to Smt. Rajasri Manche, Advocate [OPUCI 2. Two ccs to GP for civil Supplies, High court for the state of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD CoPies TJ LS YY I t. HIGH COURT DATED:03/1 112025 ORDER WP.No.32420 of 2025 i :l 4 * Et{ T o 14 (sr ;r_ C. ,t I 0Ec 1 ilD Spn L., I l\ \t * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS G*{a Y" ffi(€