Heard Mr. Shreyas Gacche, learned counsel for the appellants/complainants.

Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 51 of 2017 was filed by the appellants/ complainants before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (for short the State Commission) praying for compensation alleging medical negligence against the respondents/opposite parties. The complaint was dismissed during the Covid period on 27.10.2021 for want of prosecution. The order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the State Commission is extracted hereunder:

                          "1. This is a complaint filed under Section-17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.55,95,800/- (Rupees fifty five lakhs ninety five thousand eight hundred only) i.e., Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) as compensation, medicine expenses at KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad at Rs.3,95,800/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety five thousand eight hundred only) and Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) for transportation etc., to the Complainants; the costs of the complaint amounting to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) may be awarded.

                          2. Today also complainant and counsel called absent, even though the matter has been posted under the caption of dismissal. Hence, C.C. is dismissed for non prosecution."

This is the only order under challenge before us in the present appeal. The appeal was entertained but the same was accompanied by some delay that came to be condoned by this Commission vide order dated 17.12.2024.

We may point out that the plea taken for the absence was that the counsel could not appear before the State Commission as he was suffering due to an infection during the Covid Pandemic. This fact was sought to be certificated by some document and the following order was passed by this Commission on 02.09.2024:

                          "As prayed, one month time is allowed to the appellants for filing medical certificate showing that advocate was appearing from Corona.

                          List the matter on 03.10.2024."

Accordingly, MA No. 606 of 2024 for restoration along with IA No.12423 of 2024 for delay condonation came to be filed and the appeal was entertained and notices were issued to the respondents/opposite parties vide order dated 17.12.2024 extracted hereunder:

                          "CC/51/2017 was filed by the appellants claiming a compensation arising out of an allegation of medical negligence that came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 27.10.2021.

                          The present appeal was filed with a reported delay of 103 days on 06.04.2022.

                          There was no delay condonation application accompanying the appeal, presumably on account of the fact that the Covid period had intervened, and therefore the appellants were entitled for the benefit of the orders passed by the Apex Court in in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3/2020 and the orders passed subsequently therein. Nonetheless neither the office reported the same order nor any orders were passed in this regard and notices were issued on the appeal on 6th December, 2022.

                          The fact that there was no delay condonation application filed was noticed in the order dated 25th July, 2023 and the matter was posted for consideration thereafter.

                          It appears that the merits of the appeal were considered on 06.02.2024 and two weeks' time was allowed to the learned counsel for the appellants to file an affidavit explaining the reason for default before the State Commission.

                          Since the said affidavit was not filed, the appeal was dismissed on 08.04.2024 recording that it was being dismissed for want of prosecution even though the proxy counsel for the appellant had appeared on that date.

                          Accordingly, a miscellaneous application No.606/2024 was filed for restoring the case, on which a month's further time was allowed to the appellants for bringing on record the medical certificate indicating as to why the concerned Advocate could not appear before the State Commission, possibly on account of having been infected with Corona.

                          The documents could not be filed earlier and further time was granted on 12.11.2024. Learned counsel has now, brought on record the medical prescription dated 10th October, 2021 reciting that the person examined needed rest and was kept in isolation for 14 days after having been diagnosed him with Covid and other symptoms regarding Corona.

                          It is in these circumstances that the appeal requires a hearing on the merits and should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.

                          Having considered the submissions raised, we find that the miscellaneous application as accompanied by another delay condonation application showing sufficient cause in moving of the application, deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the delay condonation application as also miscellaneous application praying for recall of the order dated 08.04.2024 are allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number.

                          Issue notice to the respondents calling upon them to answer this appeal, and alongwith the notice, a copy of the compilation dated 12.11.2024 bringing on record the medical prescription of the concerned counsel shall also be sent to the respondents. The response be filed by the next date fixed.

                          Let the matter be listed on 12.03.2025."

The matter was again taken up on 12.03.2025 and the delay in the filing of the appeal was condoned. The order dated 12.03.2025 is extracted hereunder:

                          "The appeal had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 08.04.2024 and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Srivastava has appeared for the respondent- Hospital.

                          Thereafter restoration application (MA/606/2024) was filed along with delay condonation application and both the applications were allowed and the appeal was restored to its original number vide order dated 17.12.2024 and fresh notices were issued to the respondents.

                          The office report dated 07.03.2025 demonstrates that the notices have been served on the respondents on 08.01.2025, neither any reply has been filed nor any one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

                          There is a reported delay of 103 days in the filing of the appeal. There is no opposition to the said application and as the case is one of alleged medical negligence, we therefore find that the cause shown is sufficient and the delay condonation application is allowed and the appeal is admitted.

                          Let the matter be listed for final hearing on 29.09.2025."

The appeal once again came up on 29.09.2025 when the following order was passed after noticing the appearance of some counsel:

                          "Heard Mr. Patrick, Advocate for the Appellants who submits that no response appears to have been filed by the Respondents nor are they in receipt of the same.

                          From the order dated 17.12.2024, it is apparent that the notices were issued to the Respondents and the Office Report dated 07.03.2025 records that as per the postal track record, the notices have been served on the Respondents on 7th January/8th January, 2025.

                          The Respondent is a hospital and this is a claim regarding medical negligence.

                          The service having been completed, it appears that Mr. Dinesh Kumar has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondents on 25.07.2023. His mobile number is also indicated in the said Vakalatnama as well as the mail ID of Mr. Sanjay Roy whose name also appears on the Vakalatnama. Let the Office despatch notice to these two lawyers intimating them about the pendency of the Appeal and the next date fixed.

                          Let the matter be listed on 03.03.2026."

Accordingly, notices were directed to be sent to both the lawyers referred to in the order dated 29.09.2025 for appearing and the notices stood served on them as per the Office report dated 02.02.2026. No one appeared thereafter and this is how the matter has come up today (20.08.2026).

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants/complainants and we are satisfied that the cause shown for non-appearance of the counsel before the State Commission, who was suffering from Corona, is sufficient. The cause for non-appearance before the State Commission therefore stands clearly explained and the dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution by the State Commission therefore does not appear to be justified.

We accordingly set aside the order dated 27.10.2021 and allow this appeal. CC No. 51 of 2017 shall stand restored to its original number before the State Commission that shall be proceeded with and decided as per law after putting the respondents/opposite parties to notice.

The appellants/complainants shall appear before the State Commission on 30.09.2026.