State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Central Hospital vs Smt.Ibha Panday on 24 July, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
REVISION PETITION NO. 07 / 2016
Central Hospital
Near Gas Godam Tiraha
Kusumkhera, Haldwani
District Nainital
through its Director Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma
......Revisionist / Opposite Party
Versus
Smt. Ibha Pande W/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar Pande
R/o Pandekhola
Tehsil and District Almora
......Opposite Party / Complainant
Sh. Vijay Pal Tiwari and Sh. Rajesh Kumar Devliyal, Learned Counsel for
the Revisionist
None for the Opposite Party
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Dated: 24/07/2017
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the District Forum, Almora in consumer complaint No. 40 of 2016. By the order impugned, the District Forum has rejected the preliminary objection filed by the revisionist - opposite party for dismissal of the consumer complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and the revisionist - opposite party was directed to file the written statement against the consumer complaint filed by the opposite party - complainant.2
2. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party. We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. We have also gone through the reply sent by the opposite party through post.
3. The factual position is that the opposite party - complainant had filed a consumer complaint against the revisionist - opposite party before the District Forum, Almora, alleging medical negligence in the treatment of her husband - Sh. Dinesh Kumar Pande. On being served with the notice of the consumer complaint, the revisionist filed preliminary objection before the District Forum, stating therein that it has no Head or Branch Office within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Almora and that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant within the territorial limits of District Forum, Almora and, therefore, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 16.09.2016 discarded the preliminary objection filed by the revisionist and has held that part cause of action has arisen at Almora because the services were rendered by the revisionist at Almora and hence the District Forum, Almora has got territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Aggrieved, the revisionist has filed the present revision petition.
5. Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum and the same reads as under:
"11(2). A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, -3
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution, or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
6. There is no dispute that the husband of the complainant was treated at Central Hospital, Gas Godam Tiraha, Kusumkhera, Haldwani, District Nainital. The perusal of the consumer complaint will show that in para 13 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has stated that on account of consumption of wrong medicines at Almora, the cause of action for filing the consumer complaint has arisen and the District Forum, Almora has got territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Consumption of any good / medicine at a particular place, does not confer territorial jurisdiction upon the District Forum of that place to entertain the consumer complaint in regard to the defect in the said good / medicine.
7. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the revisionist has no branch office at Almora and the revisionist - hospital is located at Haldwani, District Nainital. Merely because 4 after discharge of the patient from the hospital, the ambulance of the hospital had taken the patient to his home at Almora, it can not be said that any services were rendered by the hospital at Almora and it can not be said that cause of action or part thereof has arisen in favour of the complainant at Almora, so as to bring the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Almora. The patient had undergone entire treatment at Central Hospital, Gas Godam Tiraha, Kusumkhera, Haldwani, District Nainital.
8. In the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited; (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 135 = IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), the fire broke out at Ambala and the compensation was claimed at Ambala. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that no part of cause of action arose in Chandigarh and the Consumer Commission, Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In the said case, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondent - insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section, the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not agree with the said submission and held that if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen at Ambala, then too, the complainant can file a claim petition in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. It was further held that it will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench-hunting. In the case at hand, the revisionist has even no branch office at Almora and hence by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the District Forum, Almora has got territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The decision quoted by the District Forum in its impugned order does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
59. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that the consumer complaint filed by the complainant was not at all maintainable before the District Forum, Almora and the District Forum has erred in rejecting the preliminary objection filed by the revisionist and calling for the written statement from the revisionist. This way, the revision petition succeeds and is fit to be allowed.
10. Revision petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 16.09.2016 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 40 of 2016 is dismissed, being not maintainable before the District Forum, Almora for want of territorial jurisdiction in the matter. However, the opposite party - complainant would be at liberty to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. No order as to costs.
(D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K