State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Roshi Satija Fertility And Ivf ... vs Beauty Dass W/O. Deepak Kumar on 12 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HARYANA
REVISION PETITION NO. SC/6/RP/6/2026
(Against the Order dated 5th January 2026 in Appeal No. DC/60/CC/592/2024 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Faridabad)
DR. ROSHI SATIJA FERTILITY AND IVF SPECIALIST
PRESENT ADDRESS - C-201 , MAIN DEOLI ROAD , JAWAHAR PARK , NEW DELHI,DELHI.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
BEAUTY DASS W/o. Deepak Kumar
PRESENT ADDRESS - H. NO. 136 , SHIV COLONY, TIGAON ROAD , GALI NO 4 ,
FARIDABAD,HARYANA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
MR. S . P . SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER
MR. SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
MR. ROHIT RANA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NEMO
DATED: 12/03/2026
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 10.02.2026 Date of final hearing: 12.03.2026 Date of Order: 12.03.2026 Revision Petition No.06 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:-
Dr. Roshi Satija, Fertility and IVF Specialist, C-201, Jawahar Park, Main Deoli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi-110062.
...Petitioner/OP Versus Mrs. Beauty Dass Wife of Sh. Deepak Kumar, Resident of House No.136, Gali No.4, Shiv Colony, Tigaon Road, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.
.....Respondent/complainant
CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER.
Present:- Mr. Rohit Rana, counsel for the petitioner.
ORDER
PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This revision petition has been preferred by revisionist/OP against the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad, vide which the application filed by the revisionist/OP has been dismissed by the learned District Consumer Commission.
2. The short facts of the case are that during the pendency of the Consumer Complaint No. 592 of 2024, revisionist/OP filed the application under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the complaint read with Section 34 of C.P. Act in which it has been mentioned that District Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as per Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act. As per the record and Aadhar card of complainant, the complainant is resident of Kolkata and OP is of Delhi and the entire cause of action arose in Delhi. Hence, District Consumer Commission of Delhi has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Before starting the IVF Procedure, patient was informed in advance that the procedure cannot be 100% successful. Complainant never follows the instruction rather came of her own will and convenience that too in the id menstrual cycle without informing OP. Because of her non-compliance, treatment started getting delayed. It was the adamancy of the complainant to get the treatment in between the menstrual cycle whereas the doctor advised to get the procedure done as per advice and to come on date given to them. Bhabhi of the complainant has already taken IVF treatment from Dr. Roshi Satija/OP and is now blessed with a baby and the complainant was referred by her Bhabhi to OP. On the basis of above submissions, OP prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In response to the said application, complainant filed her reply by stating that she is residing at House No. 136, Gali No.4, Shiv Colony, Tigaon Road, Ballabgarh and the entire cause of action has arisen at Faridabad, within the jurisdiction of learned District Commission.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed by learned District Commission while dismissing the application filed by the revisionists, the Commission has observed that at the time of arguments before learned District Commission complainant produced aadhar card of Deepak Kumar i.e. husband of complainant, family ID and certificate of marriage in order to prove that complainant is resident of Shiv Colony, Tigaon, District Faridabad. Even otherwise also, in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, revisionist/OP herself has admitted that complainant is taking treatment of IVF Procedure from the revisionist/OP. As such, the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed by learned District Consumer Commission is hereby affirmed, maintained and upheld. Present revision of revisionist is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.
5. Copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
6. File be consigned to record room.
12th March, 2026 S.C. Kaushik S.P. Sood
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
D.K.
..................
S . P . SOOD
JUDICIAL MEMBER
..................
SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK
MEMBER