State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sanjeevan Hospital Through Its Owner vs Kavita W/O. Sh. Kamaldeep on 25 November, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/512/2025
(Against the Order dated 10th September 2025 in Complaint SC/7/CC/441/2018 of the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi)
WITH
NC/IA/12759/2025 (FOR GRANT OF STAY)
NC/IA/12760/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING TRIAL RECORDS)
SANJEEVAN HOSPITAL Through its OWNER
PRESENT ADDRESS - SANJEEVAN HOSPITAL, PANIPAT ROAD, SHAMLISHAMLI,UTTAR
PRADESH.
DR. NAGENDRA MALIK S/o. SH. MAHENDRA SINGH
BUSINESS ADDRESS - SANJEEVAN HOSPITAL, PANIPAT ROAD, SHAMLISHAMLI,UTTAR
PRADESH.
DR. PAVNA MALIK W/o. DR. NAGENDRA MALIK
BUSINESS ADDRESS - SANJEEVAN HOSPITAL, PANIPAT ROAD, SHAMLISHAMLI,UTTAR
PRADESH.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
KAVITA W/o. SH. KAMALDEEP
PRESENT ADDRESS - HOUSE NO. A-36SHANTI NAGAR , EAST,DELHI.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
FOR THE APPELLANTS : MR. GURVINDER SINGH, ADVOCATE
DATED: 25/11/2025
ORDER
1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellants/opposite parties being aggrieved of the order dated 10.09.2025, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short the 'State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. SC/7/CC/441/2018.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants and perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that through the impugned order, learned State Commission has rejected the application for amendment in the written statement filed by the opposite parties / appellants. Learned counsel submitted that the amendment in the written statement can be permitted at any stage and a liberal view should be taken in this regard.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon case law Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1663 decided on 18.04.2007. Learned counsel further submitted that trial has not started as the appellants / opposite parties have not filed their evidence. Hence the impugned order should be set aside.
5. Considered the submissions made, perused the record and gone through the case law cited.
6. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the application for amendment by the appellant/Opposite Party No.6 was rejected by the concerned State Commission mainly on the grounds that the trial in the matter has already commenced as the evidence has already been filed by way of affidavit on 22.09.2023 by the complainant. As per provisions in Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of the due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. The learned State Commission has further observed that "from the record it is evident that the amendments sought by the opposite parties do not disclose any such contention or material fact which could not have been raised at the time of filing of the written statement. The averments relating to the alleged threat by the husband of the complainant, the misjoinder of the parties, the obstetric history of the complainant, the occurrence of Post-Partum Haemorrhage and alleged refusal of the complainant to undergo investigations are all matters which were very much within the knowledge of the opposite parties at the initial stage itself." The learned State Commission has further observed that the opposite parties have not explained any cogent reason as to why the contentions mentioned in the amendment application were not incorporate in the original written statement filed on 09.05.2019.
7. After observing as above inter-alia the concerned State Commission rejected the amendment application moved by the appellants / opposite parties at a belated stage. There appears no illegality, irregularity or factual or jurisdiction error in the impugned order. In the consumer related matter the written statement is filed strictly within the statutory period provided under the Act. After filing the written statement in the year 2019, the application for amendment was moved on 30.10.2023. It is also the fact that no cogent reason could be shown by the appellants / opposite parties to establish that the facts relating to proposed amendment were not in the knowledge of the appellants / opposite parties at the time of filing the written statement. The consumer complaint is decided in a time bound manner as provided under the Act, hence such amendment if allowed would defeat the purpose of the Law.
8. The case law cited relates to a Civil Suit for partition and possession, while the present one is a consumer complaint under a Special Act. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Bench, there is no illegality, irregularity, factual or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Hence this appeal deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly, at the admission stage itself.
Interim applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of. File be consigned to the record room after necessary action.
..................J SAROJ YADAV PRESIDING MEMBER