The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has allowed Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2014 filed by the Respondents regarding a medical negligence claim against the Appellants as well as the other doctors and the two Hospitals arrayed as Opposite Parties. The background in which the Complaint was filed was that the Complainant's husband a retired Principal of a Government degree college was admitted at Dr. Ramayya's Pramila Hospital also described as Opposite Party No.-1, Dr. Ramayya's Urology & Nephrology Institute and Pramila Hospitals headed by Dr. Ramayya, Respondent No.-2 and 3 in this Appeal. The present Appeal has been filed by the Consulting Urologist Dr. Vamsikrishna who is Appellant No. - 1 and Dr. Naveen Chandra Acharya the Consultant Urologist in the same Hospital. The Appellant No.-3 is Dr. Madhusudan R. Jaju, the Consultant Doctor of the other Hospital, namely, Care Hospital, Nampally and also a Consultant Doctor at Pramila Hospital.

2. The Husband of the Respondent No.-1 was diagnosed with an enlarged prostate and was advised a surgery and was admitted on 11.01.2012 at Respondent No-2 Hospital. The laser surgery was performed on 12.01.2012 and a sample of tissues were sent for biopsy to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad which revealed that it was a malignant tumor in the urinary bladder consistent with high grade eurothelial carcinoma. The report was received 16.01.2012 and accordingly, the patient was convinced as alleged by the doctors including the Appellants to undergo another surgery of radical cystectomy, etc. for removal of the entire urinary bladder.

3. He was re-admitted on 20.01.2012 and the second surgery was performed on 23.01.2012.

4. The contention raised by the Complainants was that this surgery was conducted without consulting any Oncologist nor any Oncologist Surgeon attended to the patient. After the surgery, the Complainant was shifted to Care Hospital, Nampally on 31.01.2012 where he was treated up to 06.02.2012 and then again shifted to Pramila Hospital where he was discharged on 16.02.2012.

5. The Complainant was advised a review but since the Appellant No.-1 and 2 were unavailable he was asked to return on 20.02.2012. A severe attack of asthma was suffered by him on the same day at 03.00 a.m. and he was shifted to Care Hospital where his condition worsened and he died on 27.02.2012 due to severe septic shock, multi organ dysfunctional syndrome, malnourishment and severe anemia, diabetes, hypertension associated with blood pressure post surgery.

6. The Complainant alleged negligence that was denied. The Written Version was filed by Dr. Ramesh Ramayya, Opposite Party No.-2 in the Complaint and it was preferred on behalf of all the Opposite Parties including the present Appellant.

7. After assessing the evidence the State Commission found that the patient had also undergone surgeries previously of the spleen and the appendix as well as thyroidectomy.

8. The Complainants grievance was further noticed that neither any MRI was conducted nor any PET Scan was done. The pathological and other investigations that were required to be undertaken was not done nor was the PSA value test were carried out. The State Commission observed Paragraph No. 26 - 29 as follows:

                          "26. Grade-2 Benign prostatic hyperplasia or BPH is a classification that can be treated through medication and surgery is the option if the enlarged prostate is causing serious problems. The Opposite Parties have not properly documented the symptoms before deciding whether to perform the surgery or not. The material prior to surgery does not support the fact that the patient was suffering serious problems warranting the surgery. Given the patient's medical history and previous complications, the Opposite Parties were careless in advising him to undergo the surgery at their facility when they cannot support the patient in an acute medical emergency. The patient has a complicated medical background and the Opposite Parties essentially failed to advise the important tests an rushed the patient into surgery without exercising their skill or knowledge which a medical practitioner ought to exercise.

                          27. A surgeon ought to exercise all the required precautions prior to surgery and after surgery, the post-operative care is of utmost importance. In the instance case, the following tests would have helped to decide to delay the surgery. Post-surgery they claim he was diagnosed with bladder cancer within 5 days of the prostate surgery and the Opposite Parties have submitted in their pleadings that this was never suspected when the pre-operative tests were carried out. They have also submitted that they are a highly qualified and skilled team of doctors and that the Opposite Party Hospital has carried out multiple such procedures since it commenced in the year 1970.

                          28. Having sufficiently emphasized the fact that the Opposite party doctors were experienced specialists, we find that they have failed miserably to follow the medical protocol as mandated when the patient was a 72 years old individual with Diabetes, High BP, Chronic Pulmonary disease, thyroid disease and history of spleen removal. In fact, in their evidence affidavit, the Opposite Parties have themselves specified that there was "underlying undetected risk factors associated with any surgery" and "the patient's case was not an emergency."

                          29. The two common tests are the Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) test and the DRE (Digital Rectal Exam). The Opposite Party doctors failed to evaluate the medical history and complications of the patient and failed to record the comprehensive examination along with diagnostic imaging studies. After the second surgery, which was indeed conducted within a very short span from the prostate surgery and the patient, a known case of Asthma and chronic pulmonary disease, suffered a setback, he had to be rushed to Care Hospital, Nampally since he required round the clock critical care. By their own admission, the Opposite Party No.1 hospital could not provide the 24x7 round the clock critical care for a patient with many pre-existing medical conditions."

                          7. 9. The present Appeal has been filed with a huge delay of 453 days even though the Appellant has calculated only 87 days. We find that the Impugned Order is dated 28.12.2023 whereas the present Appeal has been instituted on 15.05.2025. The Appellant has received intimation of the decision on 18.01.2024 however, in the delay condonation application the date of knowledge stated by the Appellants is as follows:

                          "The appellants came to know about the order passed in C.C.No.45/2014 in the last week of July, 2024 when they received notice from an advocate about filing of E.A. No. 13/2024, they were shocked to see the contents, immediately contacted the opposite party No.2 who in turn contacted the counsel. The counsel asked the appellants to sign vakalat afresh and gave assurance to take care of the matter before the State Commission and to file an appeal before this Hon'ble Commission. The opposite party No.2 had paid money also to the counsel in that regard."

                          810. The explanation given in the Application is that they could not come to know of it because Dr. Ramayya, Respondent No.-3 herein had filed the Written Version on behalf of all the Parties and was contesting the case but unfortunately due to his personal reasons he left the country and has settled in USA with his children. So far as the present Appellants are concerned they left the Hospital and were not in touch either with Dr. Ramayya, Opposite Party No.-2 or the Counsel.

11. An Order was passed on 22.08.2025 calling upon the Appellants to file a better affidavit in response whereto where the affidavit referred to quoted herein above was filed. Notices were issued to the Respondents to file a response to the delay condonation application and as indicated above, the Respondents have filed their Reply to the delay condonation on 22.10.2025 vide diary No. 28075.

12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that there is a valid explanation showing sufficient cause keeping in view the background of the litigation and the manner in which the Appellants had been placed after the main contesting Party namely Dr. Ramayya had migrated to USA and is settled there. The Appellants had been facing difficulty in arranging for documents or collecting papers for the purpose of filing of an Appeal after contacting Dr. Ramayya and the time consumed has been explained appropriately.

13. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has urged that the explanation given is not worth acceptance inasmuch as the Impugned Order of the State Commission is dated 28.12.2023. Even assuming that the case was contested only by Dr. Ramayya, he had information about the decision by the State Commission way back in January 2024 itself. There is no explanation from January to July, 2024 when the Appellants admit having received knowledge of the decision. The said fact therefore establishes that there is no valid explanation at least after July 2024 when admittedly the present Appeal has been instituted on 15.05.2025 which is almost a period of 10 months. Learned Counsel submits that this sort of explanation is neither acceptable nor can be condoned as it is neither sufficient cause and is a mere simple excuse.

14. The Apex Court has very recently in at least four judgments rendered its opinion once again on the issue of limitation.

15. Reference be had to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Satish Chand Shivhare & Bros. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2151. The aforesaid judgment was delivered in a case where the delay was being prayed to be condoned in a matter of arbitration where the State of UP had filed an appeal that was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The explanation given was the usual administrative rigmarole and then the Court considered the other judgments on the issue relating to sufficient cause to hold that it should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, provided there is no lack of bonafides.

16. It is undoubtedly true that the law of limitation has a harsh effect if applied strictly but at the same time, Courts and Tribunals should not ignore the explanation given. However, the Court further went on to observe that when a matter on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim, due to delay, then the delay deserves to be condoned. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:

                          "21. The questions of law purported to be raised in this Special Leave Petition are misconceived. The right of appeal is a statutory right, subject to the laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant.

                          22. When consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this case, the Petitioners failed to make out a strong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal approach does not mean that an appeal should be allowed even if the cause for delay shown is glimsy. The Court should not waive limitation for all practical purposes by condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning."

17. The Apex Court once again had the occasion to deal with a delay condonation application in a contest of land acquisition where the delay of around 479 days had been condoned in favour of the Union of India. The aggrieved persons came up to challenge the same and after consideration of the entire law on the subject, the Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531, analyzed the approach that has been explained in paragraphs 30 to 32 as follows:

                          "30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.

                          31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an "explanation" and an "excuse". An "explanation" is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an "explanation" from an "excuse".

                          Although people tend to see "explanation" and "excuse" as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.

                          32. An "excuse" is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an "excuse" would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication."

18. In our opinion, an excuse is to free oneself from some blame or seek pardon or any apology but as enunciated by the Apex Court, it can be a pretended reason, and therefore it should be distinguished carefully from a bonafide and genuine explanation. An explanation brings transparency or makes things look plain and simplified signifying truthfulness as against something bewildering or confusing. It tends to give a clear meaning to the underlying motive of the expression.

19. Subsequently, in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878 the Apex Court held that the length of delay may not be that material if the cause of delay is sufficiently explained. The observations of the Apex Court in paragraph 20 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

                          "20. Be that as it may. On account of liberty having been granted to the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, yet another O.A. No. 2066 of 2020 along with an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the impugned order came to be passed. No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned."

20. Recently the Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 600 has reiterated the opinion expressed in the case of Sheo RajSingh (Supra).

21. Applying the principles aforesaid and having heard Mr. Maruthi Rao, leanred Counsel for the Appellants as well as learned Counsel for the Respondents we find that the explanation has huge gaps and the delay is inordinate. The explanation given, that too even by professionals like doctors, does not appeal to reason for the reason that admittedly they were being defended through Dr. Ramayya and who had engaged a Counsel. The Appellants were at liberty to take steps appropriately inasmuch as they very well knew the fate of the litigation having been decided against them and were also aware of their legal team that was taking care of it. The gap from July to November, 2024 remains unexplained with any sufficient cause and similarly till May, 2025 the casual manner of filing the Appeal cannot be appreciated. In the given circumstances we are satisfied that the delay has not been appropriately explained and there are huge inordinate delays about which there is no cause shown and hence in the absence of any satisfactory explanation the delay condonation application deserves rejection.

22. We accordingly reject the delay condonation application and consequently the Appeal also stands dismissed.