State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Dr.M.R.Takale vs Mr.Hanumant P.Aambekar And Ors on 15 April, 2026
1 FA/19/881 with MA/364/2019
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/27/FA/19/881
With MISCELLNEOUS APPLICATION NO. SC/27/MA/19/364
(Arisen out of order dated 08/05/2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No. CC/17/310 by
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Solapur)
Mr. Dr. M.R. Takale,
New Karad Naka, Pandharpur,
Dist. Solapur. ........Appellant
V/s.
1. Mr. Hanumant Pandurang Ambekar, (deceased),
Through his legal heirs
1a. Sunny Hanumant Ambekar
1b Prachi Hanumant Ambekar,
Both R/at - Mahapur Chawl, Santpeth Sangola Road,
Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur.
2. Dr. Girish Borawake,
Borawake Hospital, Bhakti Marg,
Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur.
3. Dr. Surekha Borawake,
Borawake Hospital, Bhakti Marg,
Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur.
4. Manager,
Pandharpur Medicare (ICU)
(currently Metro City Hospital),
Bhakti Marg, Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur. ........ Respondents
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Justice Shri S.P. Tavade, President
Hon'ble Shri. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member
PRESENT : For Applicant / Appellant : Adv. Pilankar
For Respondents: Adv. Tajane
ORDER ON CONDONATION DELAY APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE
APPLICANT / APPELLANT
(Dt. 15/04/2026)
Per Hon'ble Vijay C. Premchandani, Member
1. The Applicant / Appellant has moved an application for condoning the delay in filing First Appeal against the judgement and order passed by Ld. District Consumer Commission Solapur in CC/310/2017 on 08/05/2019.
2 FA/19/881 with MA/364/2019
2. The Applicant / Appellant contended in the application that, the Respondent / Org. Complainant has filed consumer complaint against the present Applicant / Appellant for medical negligence. The Consumer Complaint was allowed and the present Applicant / Appellant and Respondent no 4 were held responsible for medical negligence and ordered to pay compensation to the Respondent no 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the present Applicant / Appellant has preferred this appeal. But the Applicant / Appellant could not file the present appeal within limitation period and the delay is caused of 55 days.
3. It is contended in the condonation delay application that the present Applicant / Appellant is residing and carrying his profession at Pandharpur therefore, he could not get the status of the case and he could not apply for certified copies of the order. It is further contended that, the Applicant / Appellant is a senior citizen and being a physician in Pandharpur and its locality he requires taking many critical and urgent patients on daily basis. Due to this reason also he could not meet his lawyer for further action and to apply for certified copy of the impugned order.
4. It is contended that, after taking certified copy of impugned order, the Applicant / Appellant had been to Pune to file the appeal before the Circuit Bench of State Commission at Pune but, he has told that the Pune Circuit Bench is vacant for some period and asked to approach to Hon'ble State Commission at Mumbai. Due to the said reason the delay has been occurred to the extent of 55 days. Therefore, the present Applicant / Appellant has made a prayer to condone the delay.
5. The notice was issued to the Respondents. The Respondents appeared and filed their written notes of arguments on the condonation delay application. Wherein, it is contended that, there is not a satisfactory explanation for condoning the delay. It is further replied that no day-to-day explanation has been showed and sufficient cause is not shown on the face of record. Therefore, the condonation delay application may be rejected.
3 FA/19/881 with MA/364/2019
6. Heard both sides Counsels. Perused the reasons in the application. It reveals that due to the professional responsibilities as an Doctor, the present Applicant / Appellant was busy in his profession and could not be able to attend or contact to his advocate for acquiring the status of the original case. However, it was the duty of the advocate to inform the Applicant / Appellant pertaining to the status of the consumer complaint. The aforesaid consumer complaint subject matter was medical negligence and Applicant / Appellant has been held guilty for his negligence and directed to pay compensation to the Respondents / Org. Complainants. The applicant failed to mention the sufficient cause for day to day delay for filing the present Appeal, however, there is marginal delay that may occur in the judicial process and reason called by the Applicant / Appellant that he has approached to Pune Circuit Bench of this Commission for filing present appeal but, he was advised that the Pune Bench is vacant for some period and asked to approach to Hon'ble State Commission at Mumbai may occur a delay in judicial process. Looking to the reason called is of particular nature, that shows the sufficient cause therefore, in our view the present appeal is heard on merit and in the interest of justice, the marginal delay can be condoned. This order cannot be precedent for other matters. The Applicant / Appellant was not vigilant to obtain certified copy in time that aspect has to be seen while passing this order. Hence, we inclined to pass the following order;
ORDER
1) The Condonation delay application is allowed subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the Original Complainant.
2) The present appeal is adjourned for payment of cost as well as hearing on admission to 03/08/2026
3) Copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
[Justice S. P. Tavade] President [Vijay C. Premchandani] Member 4 FA/19/881 with MA/364/2019