Lawsikho Blog

Learn about the concept of statutory appeals under section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and how to draft them before the Supreme Court of India. If you are someone who wants to practice in the Supreme Court or if you are preparing for the Supreme Court Advocate on Record exam, then this article is a must-read for you.

Introduction

This is my personal story about a client of mine who showed a lot of faith in me and made me realise never to lose hope.

So the story goes like this, my client, let us name him Mr. Patel, whose matter was in the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

 I had taken months to prepare for the matter to ensure that we do not miss anything. However, the decision was ruled against Mr. Patel. 

The matter was about a manufacturer who had clearly misrepresented the specifications of the equipment, which malfunctioned within weeks of installation, bringing the production line to a halt and causing losses worth nearly two crores to Mr. Patel.

The evidence was substantial, yet somehow, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission had found technical grounds to dismiss our case.

He asked me. “So what do we do next, Urvi? I still have faith in you and in justice.”

His trust caught me off guard. Most clients would have walked away, disappointed and looked for another advocate. 

But Mr. Patel still believed in me despite the setback.

“We can appeal to the Supreme Court,” I explained. “It will not be easy, but if you are willing to fight, so am I.”

He agreed to fight till the end. So the very next day, I visited Advocate Mehta, my senior from law school, who had considerable experience with Supreme Court matters

I worked day and night, researched relevant judgments and drafted the appeal.

Within 15 days, I filed the appeal in the Supreme Court.

A few months later, after the arguments were completed by the parties, Mr. Patel and I were waiting for the decision. 

Guess what, we obtained a favourable Order from the Supreme Court, and Mr. Patel looked at me with pride, and I could not thank Mr. Patel enough for showing faith in me, which pushed me to learn and work harder than I ever had before.”

This personal experience transformed me and my practice.

This brings us to Part 2 of the series on statutory appeals filed before the Supreme Court. In Part 1, we learnt about how to draft an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 38 of the Advocates Act,1961.

In this blog, we will learn about how to draft an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.

Are you ready? Let us begin.

We will start with some basics. 

Who is a consumer?

Under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is any person who:

• Buys any goods or hires/avails any services for consideration (whether paid or partly paid and partly promised to be paid)

• Uses such goods or services with the approval of the buyer/hirer.

It does not include a person who obtains such goods or services for resale or commercial purposes, unless it is for self-employment to earn a livelihood.

Are you following?

I will now teach you about the authorities who adjudicate consumer disputes.

What is the hierarchy of authorities that adjudicate disputes under the Consumer Protection Act,2019?

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019,[the pecuniary value was amended in Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021] has set up a three-tier quasi-judicial mechanism:

• District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Commission)
  The District Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods/services paid is up to ₹50 lakh.
  
• State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission)
  The State Commission has jurisdiction to hear appeals from Orders passed by District Commissions, and also hear original complaints of the value between ₹50 lakh to ₹2 crores;
  
• National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
  The State Commission has jurisdiction to hear appeals from Orders passed by State Commissions, and also to hear original complaints of the value exceeding ₹2 crores.

Are you following?

Now we move to the topic of appeal. For that, we look at the legal framework first.

What is the legal framework that governs filing an appeal against an Order passed by the National Commission Dispute Redressal Commission?

If someone is aggrieved by the Order of the National Commission Dispute Redressal Commission, then an appeal can be filed to the Supreme Court.

Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provides for this right to file an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Order of the National Commission.

Order XXIV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, governs the procedure for filing such an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Let us now look at the components of the appeal.

What are the components of the appeal filed under section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019?

As per Order XXIV Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the petition of appeal shall mention all the relevant facts leading up to the Order appealed from, and shall set forth in brief the objections to the Order appealed from and the grounds relied on in support of the appeal. 

The petition shall also state the date of the Order appealed from as well as the date on which it was received by the appellant.

You should also be aware of the grounds for filing such appeals.

What are the grounds for filing an appeal under section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019?

The common grounds to file this appeal usually include:

• Error of law: The aggrieved person can file an appeal if the National Commission has misinterpreted or misapplied the law.

• Jurisdictional issues: If the National Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise jurisdiction in a case where it had authority, the aggrieved person can file an appeal in such a case.

• Violation of natural justice: If the aggrieved person believes that the decision was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, they may file an appeal on these grounds.

We now move to the main part of this article, which is the drafting process.

How to draft the appeal?

We will consider the following facts to draft this appeal.

Brief facts

In January 2020, Anand Mohan and his minor child admitted Mrs. Sunita Mohan for her second delivery in Shantanu Multispeciality Clinic under the supervision and care of Dr. Nandita Verma and Dr. Uma. After delivery, Mrs. Mohan suffered severe abdominal pain and bleeding. She was transferred to Healthcure Hospital in the personal vehicle of Dr. Verma. However, she died the same day. The Appellants alleged negligence by Dr. Verma and also by Dr.Uma for not monitoring blood pressure or SpO2 levels or reviewing prior medical records. On 06.08.2020, the Appellants filed a complaint (CC No. ___/2020) before the NCDRC, seeking ₹25 crores in compensation. Their request for an independent medical expert opinion was rejected, while the NCDRC relied on the experts’ reports submitted by the Respondents. On 20.01.2024, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint, attributing death to Amniotic Fluid Embolism and finding no negligence. Aggrieved by the misapplication of law, failure to consider evidence, and violation of natural justice by the NCDRC, the appeal has been filed.

I have given the explanation in red to help you understand the purpose of each part of the appeal.

SYNOPSIS

Explanation: A synopsis is a brief summary of the matter and must include the Order being challenged, the nature of the dispute, the main grounds of the challenge, and the relief sought. It should highlight the important points that form the foundation of the case, ensuring the court understands the core issues at the outset. 

The present statutory appeal is filed by the Appellants, Anand Mohan and his minor child, under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, challenging the Impugned Order dated 20.01.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in CC No. ___/2020, wherein the NCDRC erroneously dismissed the Appellants’ complaint against Shantanu Multispeciality Clinic, Dr. Nandita Verma, and Dr. Uma for gross medical negligence leading to the death of Mrs. Sunita Mohan during her second LSCS delivery. 

The Appellants, husband and child of the deceased, engaged the Respondents’ services under a ₹10 crore “Platinum Delivery Package,” expecting premium care. However, post-delivery on 12.05.2020, Mrs. Mohan suffered severe complications due to the Respondents’ failure to monitor her condition, resulting in her death from pulmonary interstitial haemorrhage and other causes. 

The NCDRC, relying solely on the Respondents’ expert reports while rejecting the Appellants’ request for an independent medical opinion, held the death was due to a rare Amniotic Fluid Embolism (AFE) and found no negligence. 

The Impugned Order is vitiated by misapplication of law, failure to consider evidence of negligence, and violation of natural justice, as the NCDRC ignored prior medical records and failed to ensure a fair hearing. This appeal seeks to set aside the Impugned Order and award ₹25 crores in compensation for the irreversible loss caused to the Appellants.

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

Explanation: The list of dates and events is a chronological sequence of significant events relevant to the case. It must be detailed to enable the court to understand the entire matter at the threshold.

Date	Event
12.05.2020	Appellants admitted Mrs.Sunita Mohan in Shantanu Multispeciality Clinic (Respondent No. 2) for her second LSCS delivery under the ₹10 crore “Platinum Delivery Package,” with Dr. Nandita Verma (Respondent No. 1, gynaecologist) and Dr. Uma (Respondent No. 3, anaesthetist) as treating doctors. Mrs. Sunita Mohan’s delivery was performed, but no doctor monitored her post-operative condition. She experienced severe abdominal pain and was administered Tramadol, which developed complications, including bleeding and convulsions.
12.05.2020	Respondent No. 1 transferred Mrs. Mohan to Healthcure Hospital in her personal vehicle. Mrs. Mohan died the same day, with the post-mortem citing pulmonary interstitial haemorrhage, cerebral pulmonary oedema, and cardiac arrest.
06.08.2020	Appellants filed a consumer complaint (CC No. ___/2020) before the NCDRC against Respondents, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service, seeking ₹25 crores in compensation for loss of income, consortium, medical expenses, pain, and litigation costs.
04.10.2020	NCDRC rejected the Appellants’ application for an independent medical expert opinion, stating it was unnecessary at that stage, while accepting expert reports submitted by the Respondents.
20.01.2024	NCDRC passed the Impugned Order, dismissing the complaint, attributing Mrs. Mohan’s death to Amniotic Fluid Embolism, and holding that the Respondents met reasonable standards of care, relying solely on the Respondents’ expert reports.
30.01.2024	Appellants obtained a certified copy of the Impugned Order for filing the present appeal.
__.02.2024	The present appeal is filed before the Supreme Court under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, challenging the Impugned Order dated 20.01.2024.

Explanation: This section of the appeal must mention the court that is going to hear the case and the nature of the jurisdiction of the Court under which it will entertain the appeal, along with the case number, names, and description of the parties and the position of the parties before the Commission.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. ______ OF 2024

[UNDER SECTION 67 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019, READ WITH ORDER XXIV OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013]

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. ANAND MOHAN 
2. X, SON / DAUGHTER OF 

… APPELLANTS

VERSUS

1. NANDITA VERMA
2. Shantanu Multispecialty Clinic
3. UMA

… RESPONDENTS

POSITION BEFORE THE COMMISSION:

S.N.	PARTICULARS OF LITIGANT	POSITION IN THIS HON’BLE COURT	POSITION BEFORE THE NCDRC
1.	ANAND MOHAN	APPELLANT NO. 1	COMPLAINANT NO. 1
2.	X	APPELLANT NO. 2	COMPLAINANT NO. 2
V/s.
3.	NANDITA VERMA	RESPONDENT NO. 1	OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1
4.	SHANTANU MULTISPECIALITY CLINIC	RESPONDENT NO. 2	OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2
5	UMA	RESPONDENT NO. 3	OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 3

STATUTORY APPEAL UNDER SECTION 67 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019, READ WITH ORDER XXIV OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013, AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT DATED 20.01.2024 IN C.C. NO. ___ OF 2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI.

TO,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and 

His companion justices at the Supreme Court 

Court of India

You start the appeal by explaining why you are filing it. This is your introduction paragraph stating the Order that is being challenged in the appeal.

1. This appeal challenges the Impugned Order and Final Judgment dated 20.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter above-named. As the Appellant was the Original Complainant before the NCDRC, this challenge does not involve any particular amount having been imposed, and therefore, the requirements of Order XXIV Rules 3 (iii) are not applicable. A certified copy of the final Order dated 20.01.2024 is hereto annexed as Annexure P-1.

2. The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Order as the same suffers from unequal treatment of parties, since despite an application praying for obtaining expert opinions, the same was rejected, and the opinions presented by the Respondents were accepted and upheld by the Hon’ble NCDRC. In addition, it will be apparent that the Impugned Order is directly at odds with the facts and documents on record.

QUESTIONS OF LAW:

3. The following questions of law arise for the consideration of this Hon’ble Court in the present case:

1. Whether the Hon’ble NCDRC ought to have considered that the Respondents had failed to meet the requisite standard of care for medical professionals and establishments in the facts of this case?

2. Whether the Hon’ble NCDRC ought to have considered that the standard of care was not met in a situation where the Respondent No. 3, despite medical expertise, failed to monitor the SpO2 levels of the deceased during post-operative care?

3. Whether the Hon’ble NCDRC ought to have considered that the Respondents were guilty of gross medical negligence by not examining the previous medical reports of their patient, despite knowing the previous medical complications of the said deceased?

4. Whether the Impugned Judgment violates the principles of natural justice and fair hearing by refusing to call for independent expert reports, and placing reliance on reports tendered by the Respondents in the absence of such scrutiny?

You start by mentioning the brief facts of the matter leading to the Civil Appeal and attaching all relevant documents to the Appeal.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

4. The Appellants are the husband and child of the deceased, Sunita Mohan, who passed away while under the care of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for her 2nd LSCS delivery. The death was a result of the gross medical negligence attributable to the Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 and the callous deficiency in service by the Respondent No. 2. A copy of the death certificate of Sunita Mohan is hereto annexed as Annexure P-2, and a copy of the medical records of the deceased is hereto annexed as Annexure P-3.
   
5. On 12.05.2020, the deceased Ms. Sunita Mohan was admitted to the Respondent No. 2 Clinic for her 2nd LSCS delivery, as advised by the Respondent No. 1 – a Gynaecologist and Obstetrician. Respondent No. 2, a renowned hospital, was considered the most expensive private hospital in India, and was the preferred choice for Billionaires and NRIs. It offered various packages containing several services for both the expecting mother and the child. The Appellant and his late wife opted for the ‘Platinum Delivery Package’, which was priced at a base price of Rs. 10 crores, excluding taxes. A copy of the admission record dated 12.05.2020 is hereto annexed as Annexure P-4, and a copy of the contract for Platinum Delivery Package is hereto annexed as Annexure P-5.
   
6. Following the delivery, the patient and her newborn child were shifted to the ward. However, there was no doctor present to take post-surgical care. The patient was experiencing abdominal pain, and she was given an injection of Tramadol 1 cc intravenously and 1 cc through drip. She started bleeding profusely, and as a result, her condition worsened. She developed involuntary body movements, tonic-clonic convulsions, frothing at the mouth, up-rolling of the eyes, and harsh breathing. etc. 
   
7. Clueless as to how to control the loss, she was then transferred to Healthcure
   Hospital and Research Centre, in a haphazard and insensitive manner, where she passed away on the same day. The Post-Mortem was performed, and the cause of death was given as Pulmonary interstitial haemorrhage with cloudy change in the kidney, with Cerebral Pulmonary oedema & cardiac arrest. A copy of the Post-Mortem Report dated 12.05.2020 is hereto annexed as Annexure P-6.
   
8. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 was negligent in failing to notice and treat or control the rise in blood pressure (BP). Additionally, the Respondent No. 2 did not call for records of the patient’s first pregnancy, as she had suffered from similar symptoms. She was also not present to take post-surgical care for bleeding and pain in her abdomen. Moreover, she did not call for an ambulance, having emergency equipment to save the patient’s life, but instead shifted the dead body of the deceased in her car, and did not record it anywhere. The situation also turned fatal when the Respondent No. 3, the Anaesthetist, did not assess the patient’s SpO2 level and did not follow the recovery from anaesthesia. 
   
9. Being aggrieved, the Appellants filed the Consumer Complaint dated 06.08.20 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and prayed a sum of Rs. 25,00,00,000/- as compensation under various heads viz. Loss of income of deceased, loss of consortium, medical treatment expenses, pain and suffering, and cost of litigation. The Respondents were impleaded as the Opposite Parties, being directly responsible for the grave and irreversible loss caused to the Appellant No. 1 and, more importantly, to the Appellant No. 2, his child. A copy of the Consumer Complaint dated 06.08.2020 is hereto annexed as Annexure P-7.
   
10. As this was a medical negligence case, which requires expert testimony, the Appellants moved an application to refer the matter to medical experts. The Hon’ble NCDRC, however, vide Order dated 04.10.20, disposed of the application stating that, “In our view, it is unnecessary and unwarranted at this stage. We may refer to medical experts if deemed necessary and appropriate during further hearing.”

A copy of the Order dated 04.10.2020 passed by the NCDRC is hereto annexed as Annexure P-8.

11. The Hon’ble NCDRC passed its Final Order dated 20.01.2024 dismissing the said Complaint. The NCDRC observed that the post-mortem findings were consistent with fatal AFE (Amniotic Fluid Embolism), which in itself is a rare condition. There was no negligence during LSCS. The patient, despite having been shifted to the higher medical centre, could not be saved. The NCDRC opined that the Respondents treated the patient with reasonable standards and shifted her to the higher centre at an appropriate time without any delay. The death was due to amniotic fluid embolism, which was unfortunate and fatal. No negligence was attributed to the act of the Respondents. 
    
12. The NCDRC stated that the Appellants failed to establish negligence, i.e. failure of duty of care or any deficiency from the treating doctors or the hospital. To the Appellants’ shock, the NCDRC further opined that the Appellants had not filed any medical expert opinion in support of the allegations against the hospital and the doctors and that the two Expert Opinions filed by the Respondents had gone unrebutted and unchallenged. A copy of the expert opinions filed by Respondents is hereto annexed as Annexure P-9.
    
13. It is in these circumstances that the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. The Appeal has been filed within the statutorily prescribed time of 30 days, and is therefore within limitation.

You start by mentioning the grounds in support of the appeal. Remember that grounds always begin with “Because”. 

GROUNDS:

14. BECAUSE the Impugned Order fails to take note of the fact that the Respondents failed to even monitor the vitals of the deceased prior to or even during the post-operative care.
    
15. BECAUSE the gross negligence on the part of the Respondent No. 1 is apparent from the fact that she had not even examined the previous medical reports of the deceased even though she was aware that this was her patient’s second pregnancy and that the first pregnancy had faced serious complications requiring additional care and diligence on the part of medical experts.
    
16. BECAUSE despite the fact that the Appellants had prayed for the Hon’ble Commission to appoint independent experts, the Commission chose not to appoint such experts, and placed reliance on the reports tendered by the Respondents, even though the Commission, by itself, is not an expert on the nuances of medical procedures. As such, if the reports tendered by the Respondents were to be relied upon, the Commission ought to have obtained an independent report of its own to examine the veracity of the Respondents’ defence. 
    
17. BECAUSE the standard of care was not met in the present case is also apparent from the fact that the Respondent No. 3, an anaesthetist, failed to check the SpO2 levels of her patient, which is the most basic requirement for administering and monitoring anaesthetics. 
    
18. BECAUSE at a time of great uncertainty, all hospital procedures were compromised, as the Respondent No. 1, to prevent the Appellants from ascertaining the reality, chose to transport the dead body using her personal vehicle rather than an ambulance. The same was verifiable from the security apparatus of the hospital.

It is mandatory to mention the date when the Order was communicated to the Appellant, which is necessary to compute the limitation period.

LIMITATION:

19.  The Appellant states that the Impugned Order was passed on 20.01.2024, and the Appellant obtained an authenticated copy of the Impugned Order for the purpose of filing the present appeal on 30.01.2024. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed within the limitation.

Finally, you mention the prayer clause requesting the appeal to be admitted and allowed, followed by the setting aside of the Order. In this case, you also ask for reinstatement of the license. Here is how the prayer clause shall look in the present case.

RELIEFS:

In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Set aside the Impugned Order dated 20.01.2024, and hold the Respondents liable for medical negligence and deficiency of service, leading to the death of Mrs. Sunita Mohan, and award compensation to the Appellants in terms of C.C. No. ____ of 2020 as filed before the Hon’ble NCDRC; and
   
2. Grant any other or further Orders as this Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Date:

Place:

Drawn and Filed by:

__________________

Advocate-on-Record

You have now learnt a new skill which is very important for you.

Let us even look at the documents to be annexed to the appeal

What are the documents to be annexed to the appeal?

As per Order XXIV Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the appeal shall be accompanied by:

• an authenticated copy of the Order appealed from; 
• at least three spare sets of the petition and the papers tiled with it; and 
• Bank draft for rupees fifty thousand or fifty per cent of the amount, whichever is less, required to be paid by the person intending to appeal, in terms of the Order of the National Commission, drawn in favour of the Registrar, Supreme Court of India, payable at New Delhi.

Another important question that should not be ignored is the limitation period for filing such an appeal.

What is the limitation period to file an appeal under section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019?

As per section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as well as Order XXIV Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the limitation period to file an appeal is 30 days from the date of the Order passed by the National Commission.

Lastly, we will learn about the procedure after the filing and registration of the appeal.

What is the procedure after filing and registration of an appeal under section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019?

As per Order XXIV Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, after the appeal is registered, it shall be put up for hearing ex-parte before the Court which may either dismiss it summarily or direct issue of notice to all necessary parties or may make such Orders as the circumstances of the case may require.

If notice is issued, all the parties are required to file their respective pleadings on record, and the matter is placed before the Court for final hearing of the appeal, which will hear all the parties and decide the appeal finally by either allowing the appeal or dismissing the appeal.

Conclusion

To effectively pursue an appeal before the Supreme Court under section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it is necessary to adhere to the procedural framework laid down in Order XXIV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. It is also important that you diligently practice drafting the appeal to understand what actually goes on in the process of drafting. You can pick up a case, prepare a draft, and get it checked by a senior or someone who has already drafted it before. This will help you become a better lawyer.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

1. Who can file an appeal under section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019?

Any person aggrieved by the Order of the National Commission Dispute Redressal Commission can file an appeal before the Supreme Court

2. What is the court fee for such an appeal?

As per Order XXIV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the court fee of Rs.5000/- has to be paid on the appeal.

3. Is the time period for obtaining the certified copy of the Order excluded in computing the period of limitation?

Yes, as per proviso to Rule 1 of Order XXIV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, in computing the limitation period of sixty days, the time period for obtaining an authenticated copy of the Order sought to be appealed from shall be excluded.

4. Can an appeal be entertained without the deposit of the amount in the Supreme Court?

No appeal shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless the appellant has deposited, in the prescribed manner:

• 50% of the amount ordered by the National Commission, or
• ₹50,000, whichever is less.

This provision ensures that only those who are genuinely aggrieved and are serious about challenging the Order proceed with the appeal.

5. Can I file an appeal against any Order passed by the NCDRC to the Supreme Court?

No. Only final Orders can be challenged by way of an appeal to the Supreme Court.