State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Piyali Halder Saha vs Ramkrishna Sarada Mission Matri Bhavan on 8 January, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/150/2023 ( Date of Filing : 24 Nov 2023 ) 1. PIYALI HALDER SAHA CHINTAMONI PARA, CIVIL COURT ROAD, DIAMOND HARBOUR, SOUTH 24 PARGANAS, PIN - 743331 24 PARAGANAS SOUTH WEST BENGAL ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. RAMKRISHNA SARADA MISSION MATRI BHAVAN 7A, SREE MOHAN LANE, KOLKATA - 700026 KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 2. DR. KAUSHIK DUTTA 24B, PRATAPADITYA ROAD, NEAR TOLLYGUNGE, P.S. KALIGHAT, KOLKATA - 700026 KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 3. DR. DIPTI PAL 7A, SREE MOHAN LANE, KOLKATA - 700026 KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 4. FORTIS HEALTHCARE 730, ANANDAPUR, EMP BYEPASS ROAD, KOLKATA - 700107 KOLKATA WEST BENGAL ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL PRESIDENT PRESENT: DEBAYAN HALDER, Advocate for the Complainant 1 None appears ......for the Opp. Party Dated : 08 Jan 2024 Final Order / Judgement
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT The complainant Piyali Halder Saha has filed this petition of complaint praying for the following reliefs :-
"i) Delay if any in filing the complaint be condoned.
ii) An order may be passed directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty five lakh) towards reimbursement of the medical expenses which was incurred by the Complainant towards treatment of gangrene which was caused only due to the wrong treatment of the Opposite Party No. 1 hospital.
iii) An order may be passed directing the Opposite Party No. 1 hospital to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Complainant towards mental agony and physical pain which has been suffered by her due to the wrong treatment by the Opposite Party No. 1 hospital.
iv) Attachment before judgment.
v) Receiver
vi) Cost
vii) Other reliefs."
Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant and also perused the record.
Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant and on perusal of the record it appears to me that the complainant has valued the complaint case at Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakh) only.
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the pecuniary jurisdiction for the State Commission is required to be determined on the basis of "value of goods from services paid as consideration." In the present case the complainant has nowhere stated in the petition of complaint about the actual amount which she has paid to the Opposite Parties towards consideration for services.
In the result, I am of the opinion that, as at present, the complainant has not been able to satisfy me as to what basis the claim reached at Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees fifty five lakh only), has been quantified, I am convinced the claim has been inflated in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission.
Consequently, I decline to admit the complaint. The complaint is dismissed accordingly, with liberty to the complainant to suitably amend her complaint and file the same before the appropriate Consumer Forum. If the complainant chooses to file fresh complaint, her application for condonation of delay, if any, shall be considered by excluding the time spent before this Commission.
The complaint case is thus disposed of accordingly.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL] PRESIDENT