Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission has recently held that a minor complainant has every right to file a complaint till attaining majority as also in between the time period of attaining majority the parent or legal guardian can file a complaint on their behalf.

A bench of Members AK Tiwari, Srikant Pandey, and DK Shrivastava passed the order in a revision petition filed by a doctor against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order wherein the application filed by the applicant for the condonation of delay has been allowed.

The original complaint was filed by a minor through her maternal grandfather alleging medical negligence on part of the doctor as her mother after giving birth to her in the doctor’s hospital had died in 2013. Since the complaint was filed in 2021 an application for condonation of delay was also filed, which was allowed by the DCDRC.

Advocate Yash Jain appearing for the doctor submitted that only upon sympathy, delay cannot be condoned as the expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Jain further submitted that the limitation of two years is a legislative command in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which cannot be ignored, let alone without sufficient cause.

Jain further argued that as per Section 6 of the Limitation Act a minor or insane, or an idiot, may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, which in this case was after attaining majority, however, the complainant herein was a minor (7 years old) at the time of filing the complaint.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the District Commission had rightly allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint as the complainant was minor and the complaint was filed by her guardian.

Perusing the definition of "complainant", the State Commission said that in the case of a minor, the complaint could be filed by his/her parent or legal guardian.

Thereafter, while going through section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act the State Commission noted that there should be some sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period and the District Commission may record its reason for condoning the delay.

Furthermore, it noted that the complaint had been filed by the maternal grandfather stating that the complainant was a minor and her father had remarried and since her father did not take any action, he had filed the present complaint before the District Commission.

The Commission opined that this clearly went to show that minor's father had remarried and lost interest in his daughter, therefore, her maternal grandfather had filed the complaint. "Section 69 of the Act gives power to the District Commission, State Commission, or the National Commission, as the case may be, to condone the delay where the sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the stipulated time period has been shown and the Commission is satisfied with the reasons given for such delay," it noted.

In view of the above, the State Commission said that it can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the District Commission below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

Whereas from the record it is established that the District Commission after considering the sufficient cause for not filing the complaint in time recorded the reasons for condoning the delay as per provisions of Section 69 of the Act of 2019, the State Commission said while holding that the District Commission had therefore committed no error while condoning the delay in filing of the complaint.

Case details have been withheld.