National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bharat Yogiraj Gaikwad vs Dr. Vijaykumar Revansiddha Keskar & 4 ... on 12 December, 2018
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 418 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 16/10/2015 in Appeal No. 192/2014 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. BHARAT YOGIRAJ GAIKWAD R/O BHAWANI CHOWK GANESH NAGAR, OSMANABAD MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DR. VIJAYKUMAR REVANSIDDHA KESKAR & 4 ORS. R/O 1551/2/9, SUBHASH NAGAR, OPP. BARSHI TEXTILE MILL, AGALGAON ROAD, BARSHI DISTRICT-SOLAPUR MAHARASHTRA 2. THE DIRECTOR, ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUGNALAYA, SOLAPUR UTTAR SADAR BAZAR SOLAPUR MAHARASHTRA 3. ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUGNALAYA ANI THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SHRI VISHWANATH MALLIKARJUN MERKAR, ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUGNALAYA ANI, SANSHODHAN KENDRA NIYMIT SOLAPUR SURVEY NO. 7107/1, TANK PLOT NO. 180, NORTH SADAR, SOLAPUR-413 003 MAHARASHTRA 4. DR. SURESH KARANJKAR SUSHRUT HOSPITAL, SAMARTH NAGAR WARUDA ROAD, OSMANABAD MAHARASHTRA 5. DR. TOSHIWAL NAVNEET HOSPITAL (TALMJALA), 936/1, UTTAR SARDAR BAZAR, RIMAND HOME, JAVAL SOLAPUR-3 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vidyadhar Koshe, Advocate with Ms. Prachiti Deshpande, Advocate for R-1 R-2 & 3 ex-parte vide order dated 21.07.2017 Mr. G.H. Kulkarni, Advocate for R-4 & 5 Dated : 12 Dec 2018 ORDER We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeal, preferred by Dr. Vijaykumar Revansiddha Keskar, who was arrayed as Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, has been allowed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Osmanabad (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) has been set aside on two grounds, namely, on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as also on merits.
So far as the order of the State Commission, dismissing the Complaint case filed by the Petitioner herein on the ground that the District Forum, Osmanabad, had no territorial jurisdiction, is concerned, we consider it appropriate to reproduce below the Array of Parties, Paragraphs 1 and 11 of the Complaint, which refers to Dr. Suresh Karanjkar, impleaded as Non-Applicant No.1, and the Reliefs claimed by the Petitioner. The same reads as under:
Array of Parties "Applicant :- Shri. Bharat Yogiraj Gaikwad Age- 60 Yrs, Occu- Pentioner R/o Bhavani Chowk, Ganesh nagar, Osmanabad.
V/s Non-applicant :- 1) Shri Dr. Suresh Karanjkar (M.S.) Age- 40 Yrs, Occ- Doctor, R/o Samarth Nagar, Osmanabad. 2) Dr. Vijaykumar R. Keskar (M.S.) (Medical Director) Age-45 Yrs, Occ- Doctor, R/o 1551/2/9 Subhash Nagar, Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur. 3) Dr. Toshniwal (Kidney Specialist) Solapur Kidney Care Centre, Solapur, 88A, Railway Line, Behind old R.T.O. Office Solapur. 4) The Director, Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya, Solapur, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur, Tq. And Dist. Solapur" Para 1 and 11 of the Complaint "1) Applicant is resident of Osmanabad on date 05.02.2009 the wife of applicant naming Lochana Bharat Gaikwad carried to hospital of non-applicant No.1 for check up as there was pain in her stomach. So applicant is consumer of non-applicant No.1.
11) That, the applicant carried his wife to non-applicant No.1 for checkup on 05/02/2009. So applicant is consumer of non-applicant No.1 to 4. So by keeping in view the joint medical service of non-applicant No.1 to 4 and also by considering the defaulted medical service by non-applicant No.2 also errors in medical service it is just and proper to get proper compensation with expenditure of Rs.10 Lakh from non-applicant No.2 to applicant."
Reliefs "Complaint of the applicant be allowed and from non-applicant No.2 a amount with expenditure of Rs.10,00,000/- as a financial and mental compensation be granted to applicant as applicant faced and suffered futile financial loss for the medical service from non-applicant No.3 and 4 due to defaulted medical service, errors in the service by non-applicant No.2 and also due negligence in the management of non-applicant No.2. Likewise applicant also faced mental harassment."
Except paragraphs 1 and 11, reproduced above, in the entire Complaint the Petitioner has not made any averment against Dr. Suresh Karanjkar. Further, the remaining Non-Applicants (Opposite Parties) 2 to 4 impleaded in the Complaint are residents of District Solapur (Maharashtra) and not Osmanabad (Maharashtra). Even the Petitioner has not claimed any Relief against Dr. Suresh Karanjkar (Non-Applicant No.1/Opposite Party No.1) in the Complaint filed by him. When these facts were pointed out to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, he very fairly admitted it.
We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Osmanabad and the State Commission has rightly held that the District Forum at Osmanabad did not have the territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the State Commission on this point.
As the order of the State Commission on the point of territorial jurisdiction has been upheld, we are not going into the merits of the matter.
It will be open for the Petitioner to take recourse to such proceedings in accordance with law.
The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER