National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Indrani Chatterjee, vs Amri Hospitals, on 7 November, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.383 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1746 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) 1. Indrani Chatterjee, D/o Raj Kumar Biswas, 5, Alipore Avenue, Ext. West, Kolkata 700027 2. Debjani Das, D/o Raj Kumar Biswas, D-2, Quarter No. D-6, Mint Township, Sector -1 Noida 201301. ... Complainants Vs. AMRI Hospitals, Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.384 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1747 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) Jhumar Pal, W/o Late Nitai Sundar Pal, R/o: 12/10/2, Bhuban Mohan Roy Road, PO: Barisha, Kolkata 700008. West Bengal ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals, Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.385 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1748 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) Samarendra Mallick, S/o Late Sasadhar Mallick, R/o: 73, Charu Chandra Singha Lane, Sandhya Bazar, Howrah 711101. West Bengal ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals, Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.386 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1749 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) 1. Kashinath Pandit, S/o Adhir Pandit, R/o Village Ranbagpur, P.O.: Gorghal, P.S: Purshura, District: Hoogly, West Bengal Pin: 712414. 2. Suraj Pandit, S/o Kishinath Pandit, R/o Village Ranbagpur P.O.: Gorghal, P.S: Purshura, District: Hoogly, West Bengal Pin: 712414. ... Complainants Vs. AMRI Hospitals, Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.387 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1750 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) Dhananujoy Paul, F/o Late Miss Prakrita Paul, Village + PO: Deshra, District: Bankura, West Bengal, Pin: 722141. ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.388 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1751 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) Pradip Sen, S/o Late Patit Paban Sen, R/o: 60/87, M.S. Mukherjee Road, PO: B.D. Sopan, PS: Khardah, District: 24 Parganas (North), Kolkata 700116, West Bengal. ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.389 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1752 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) Subhasish Chakraborty, H/o Late Smt. Munmum Chakraborty, R/o: 69, Garfa Main Road, PO: Haltu, Kolkata West Bengal. ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.390 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1753 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) 1. Sujit Chatterjee, H/o Late Mrs. Kamala Chatterjee, R/o Vilalge & PO: Sheakhala, PS: Chanditala, Sub-Divison: Serampore, District: Hoogly 712706, West Bengal. 2. Surajit Chattopadhyay, S/o Sujit Chatterjee, R/o Village & PO: Sheakhala, PS: Chanditala, Sub-Division: Serampore, District: Hoogly 712706, West Bengal. ... Complainants Vs. AMRI Hospitals Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.391 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1754 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) Uttam Agarwala, S/o Late Mrs. Sushila Devi Agarwala, PO+PS: Raiganj Kumar Dangi, District: Uttar Dinajpur, Pin: 733134, West Bengal. ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.398 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1755 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) 1. Paromita Guha Thakurta, D/o Mridula Guha Thakurta, Flat No. 4B, Block-2, EKTA Heights, 56, Raja SC Mullick Road, Kolkata 700032. 2. Probidita Guha Thakurta, D/o Mridudla Guha Thakurta, Flat No. 14, Satadeep Apartment, 539, Baishnabghata Patuli, Kolkata 700094. ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.399 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1756 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) Swapan Kumar Paik, S/o Late Makhan Chandra Paik, Village: Kaikhali, PO: Gabberja, Police Station: Kulpi District: 24 Paraganas (South) 743336, West Bengal ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.400 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1757 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) Krishna Mahanta, W/o Late Swapan Mahanta, R/o Village Ukhra, Asthalpara, P.O.: Andal, Durgapur, District: Burdwan, West Bengal. ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.401 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1758 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) Chandana Sarkar, W/o Jaharlal Sarkar, R/o Teghoria Durga Mandap, P.O: ADCO Nagar, P.S.: Magra, District: Hoogly Pin: 712121 West Bengal. ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.402 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1759 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) Tapas Roy Choudhury, S/o Late Ramen Roy Choudhury, Renu Villa, Purbasha Lane, Dr. Meghnad Saha Road, P.O. & P.S. Asansol, District: Burdwan, West Bengal. ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.412 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1760 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) Sri Nilabja Haldar, 47, K.K. Roychowdhury Road, Police Station Thakurpukur, Kolkata 700008, West Bengal. ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals-Dhakuria, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. Represented through its MD Annexe Building, 15, Panchanantala Road, (Beside Dhakuria Bridge), Kolkata 700029, West Bengal. Opp. Party CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.415 of 2013 Along with I.A. NO. 1761 OF 2014 (FOR STAY) Istiyak Ahamed Khan, F/o Late Imran Khan, R/o 3, Munshijunge Road, Kolkata 700023, West Bengal. ... Complainant Vs. AMRI Hospitals Through its Management, A unit of AMRI Hospital Ltd. P-4 & 5 C.I.T Scheme LXXII Block-A, Gariahat Road, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700029 Opp. Party BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Complainants : Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Advocate (in all Complaints Mr. Bharat Sood, Advocate Except CC No.412/13) For the Complainant : In Person In CC No. 412/2013 For Opposite Party : Mr. Pallav Sisodia, Senior Advocate Mr. Aditya Shankar and Mr. Samnvya D. Dwivedi, Advocates with him. O R D E R
(Pronounced on 7th day of November, 2014) D.K. JAIN, J. PRESIDENT All these sixteen complaints u/s 21
(a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act), against AMRI Hospital, Kolkata, arise out of the same incident of fire, in which a large number of human lives were lost and perhaps equal number of the patients had suffered grievous injuries. Therefore, all these complaints are being dealt with by this common order. However, in order to appreciate the controversy, the facts are taken from CC No. 383 of 2013.
2. As per the averments in the complaints, filed by the Legal Heirs/Authorized Representatives of some of the patients, who perished in the fire, on 09.12.2011, at around 02.00 a.m, there was fire in the basement of the Annexe Building of the Hospital, meant for car parking. However, it was being used for storage of highly combustible items, like chemical waste, diesel, oxygen cylinders etc. Because of such inflammable material, the fire spread, emitting poisonous smoke, which got circulated in the entire Building through the Air Conditioning ducts. The fire could not be controlled by the security personnel on duty. On being informed, the night administrator, instructed the security to close the collapsible door at the entrance of the Annexe Building; on being contacted by some patients, the fire brigade reached the spot around 4.00 a.m.; neither the relatives of the patients were permitted to enter the Hospital nor the patients were allowed to leave the Hospital as they were required to clear the outstanding bills before leaving the Hospital. A large number of patients died due to Asphyxia caused by the poisonous gas. The bodies were brought out of the building by the fire brigade, around 6.30 a.m. and were sent for post-mortem.
3. It is alleged that there were gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Hospital because: i) the security personnel on duty did not immediately call the fire brigade for assistance; (ii) the fire brigade reached the spot after two hours of noticing of fire and that too when a call was made to them by a patient; iii) the fire alarms and sprinklers, mandatory in such kind of multi-storeyed buildings, did not function at the time of fire as these were either switched off or were not installed properly; iv) insistence of the staff of the Hospital in clearing the outstanding bills at that crucial stage before leaving the Hospital, was not only inhuman, it resulted in loss of human lives; v) the hospital staff, including the nurses on duty, did not make any attempt to take care and guide the patients, some of them being in critical condition and unable to move; and (vi) to facilitate some fresh air coming in and emergency exit for those trapped inside, the glass panes were not broken by the staff.
4. For the sake of ready reference, break up of amounts claimed in the Complaints as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages under different heads, with details of the age, source of income, complainants relationship with them, in respect of each of the victims is given in a tabular format below:-
Sl.
No. Consumer Complaint No. Name of the Patient/victim (deceased) and occupation Age Of Vic-
tim Complainants/ Claimants (Relationship with Victim) Claims Head Amount of damage claimed In Rupees
1.
C.C.NO.383 of 2013 Raj Kumar Biswas, Retired Government Employee 82
1. Indrani Chatterjee Aged 50 yrs
2. Debjani Das Aged 49 years (Daughters of the Deceased)
1. Loss of prospective and future earnings
2. Medical Expenses
3. Legal Expenses
4. Cost of the complaint
5. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
6. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
7. Pain suffering endured by the patient
8. Punitive Damages
9. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 2,00,000 11,553 1,00,000 50,000 1,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 7,53,61,553
2. C.C.NO.385 of 2013 Sasadhar Maalick (No occupation and source of Income disclosed) 88 Samarendra Mallick Aged 62 yrs.
(Son of deceased)
1. Loss of prospective and future earnings
2. Medical Expenses
3. Legal Expenses
4. Cost of the complaint
5. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
6. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
7. Pain suffering endured by the patient
8. Punitive Damages TOTAL DAMAGES 2,20,112 1,00,000 50,000 1,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 7,53,61,553
3. C.C.NO.384 of 2013 Nitai Sundar Pal (No source or particulars of income disclosed) 76 Ms. Jhumur Pal Aged 43 years (Wife of deceased)
1. Loss of prospective and future earnings
2. Medical Expenses
3. Legal Expenses
4. Cost of the complaint
5. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
6. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
7. Pain suffering endured by the patient
8. Punitive Damages
9. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 5,00,000 10,553 1,00,000 50,000 1,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 7,56,60,000
4. C.C.NO.402 of 2013 Mina Roy Choudhury (A Business woman) 71 Tapas Ray Choudhary Aged 46 years (Son of deceased)
1. Loss of prospective and future earnings
2. Medical Expenses
3. Legal Expenses
4. Cost of the complaint
5. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
6. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
7. Pain suffering endured by the patient
8. Punitive Damages
9. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 60,00,000 1,10,000 1,00,000 50,000 50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 7,03,20,000
5. C.C.NO.388 of 2013 Patit Paban Sen (No occupation and source of Income disclosed) 70 Pradip Sen Aged 46 years (Son of deceased)
1. Loss of prospective and future earnings
2. Medical Expenses
3. Legal Expenses
4. Cost of the complaint
5. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
6. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
7. Pain suffering endured by the patient
8. Punitive Damages
9. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 5,00,000 78,661 1,00,000 50,000 1,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 7,53,28,661
6..
C.C.NO.390 of 2013 Kamala Chatterjee (Retired School Teacher) 65
1. Surjit Chatterjee Aged 67 years (Husband of deceased)
2. Suarajit Chattopadhyay Aged 36 years (Son of deceased)
1. Loss of prospective and future earnings
2. Medical Expenses
3. Legal Expenses
4. Cost of the complaint
5. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
6. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering for husband
7. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering for husband
8. Pain suffering endured by the patient
9. Punitive Damages
9. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 5,00,000 4,49,995 1,00,000 50,000 50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 8,60,99,995
07. C.C.NO.398 of 2013 Mridula Guha Thkurta (Occupation not disclosed) 63
1. Paromita Guha Thakurt Aged 45 years (Daughter of the deceased)
2. Parobidita G. Thakurta Aged 32 years (Daughter of deceased)
1. Medical Expenses
2. Legal Expenses
3. Cost of the complaint
4. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
5. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
6. Pain suffering endured by the patient
7. Punitive Damages
8. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 50,000 1,00,000 50,000 50,00,000 3,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 8,02,00,000
08. C.C.NO.401 of 2013 Jaharlal Sarkar (A Sramik with West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ) 58 Mrs. Chandana Sarkar Aged 42 years (Wife of deceased)
1. Loss of prospective and future earnings
2. Medical Expenses
3. Legal Expenses
4. Cost of the complaint
5. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
6. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
7. Pain suffering endured by the patient
8. Punitive Damages
9. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 15,00,000 82,938 1,00,000 50,000 1,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 7,67,32,938
9. C.C.NO.391 of 2013 Sushila Devi Agarwala (Home Maker) 56 Uttam Agarwala Aged 32 years (son of deceased)
1. Medical Expenses
2. Legal Expenses
3. Cost of the complaint
4. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
5. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
6. Pain suffering endured by the patient
7. Punitive Damages
8. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 1,19,226 1,00,000 50,000 1,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 7,52,69,226
10. C.C.NO.399 of 2013 Prapti Paik (Home Maker) 50 Swapan Kumar Paik Aged 60 years (Husband of deceased)
1. Medical Expenses
2. Legal Expenses
3. Cost of the complaint
4. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
5. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
6. Pain suffering endured by the patient
7. Punitive Damages
8. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 77,000 1,00,000 50,000 50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 7,02,27,000
11. C.C.NO.400 of 2013 Swapan Mahanta {An employee at ECL (Coal India} (Income not disclosed) 48 Ms. Krishna Mahanta Aged 41 years (Wife of deceased)
1. Loss of prospective and future earnings
2. Medical Expenses
3. Legal Expenses
4. Cost of the complaint
5. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
6. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
7. Pain suffering endured by the patient
8. Punitive Damages
9. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 65,00,000 2,61,942 1,00,000 50,000 2,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 9,19,11,942
12. C.C.NO.389 of 2013 Munmum Chakraborty (House Maker) 36 Subhasis Chakraborty Aged 41 years (Husband of deceased)
1. Medical Expenses
2. Legal Expenses
3. Cost of the complaint
4. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
5. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
6. Pain suffering endured by the patient
7. Punitive Damages
8. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 93,028 1,00,000 50,000 3,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 9,52,43,028
13. C.C.NO.386 of 2013 Sangita Pandit (Teacher with a salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m.) 24
1. Kashinath Pandit Aged 63 years (Father of deceased)
2. Suraj Pandit Aged 33 years (Brother of deceased)
1. Loss of prospective and future earnings
2. Medical Expenses
3. Legal Expenses
4. Cost of the complaint
5. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
6. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering for father
7. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering for brother
8. Pain suffering endured by the patient
9. Punitive Damages
10. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 50,00,000 1,49,367 1,00,000 50,000 1,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 9,07,99,367
14. C.C.NO.415 of 2013 Imran Khan (Working in a car mechanic shop) 22 Istiyak Ahad Khan Aged 57 years (Father of deceased)
1. Loss of prospective and future earnings
2. Legal Expenses
3. Cost of the complaint
4. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
5. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
6. Pain suffering endured by the patient
7. Punitive Damages
8. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 5,00,000 1,00,000 50,000 1,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 7,56,50,000 15 C.C.NO.387 of 2013 Prakita Paul (Class IXth student) 15 Dhananjoy Paul Aged 44 years (Father of deceased)
1. Loss of prospective and future earnings
2. Medical Expenses
3. Legal Expenses
4. Cost of the complaint
5. Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities
6. Emotional Distress, pain and suffering
7. Pain suffering endured by the patient
8. Punitive Damages
9. Special damage TOTAL DAMAGE 50,00,000 36,619 1,00,000 50,000 1,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 7,56,86,619
16. C.C.NO.412 of 2013 Chandrani Saha (State to be Sr. Scientific Officer) 34 Mr. Nilabh Haldar Aged 39 years (Husband of deceasd
1. Loss of income of wife (deceased) by using multiplier of 25 on entire total annual income of Rs.5,63,905/-
2. Loss of income of self by using multiplier of 25 on entire annual income of Rs.4,03,350/-
(last earned in the year 2010-11)
3. Non pecuniary Losses (Subdivided in the rejoinder)
i) Loss of love and affection
(ii) Damages for mental and physical shock, pain, suffering for rest of life
iii) Loss of all amenities in life
iv) Loss of all work, devotion and motivation
v) Loss of life expectancy
vi) Mental stress in life, frustration and agony TOTAL DAMAGE 1,40,97,625 1,00,83,750 10,00,00,000 2,50,00,000 2,00,00,000 2,50,00,000 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 12,41,81,375
5. Upon notice, Written Versions have been filed on behalf of the Hospital/Opposite Party refuting the allegations made in each of the Complaints on merits. By way of preliminary objections, the Hospital has raised the question of the maintainability of the Complaints before this Commission, inter-alia on the grounds that: (i) various other proceedings, civil and criminal in nature, arising out of the same set of facts are under adjudication before other courts of law and therefore, disclosure of its defence in the Complaints would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the Hospital and (ii) the claims made are highly exaggerated, fanciful, without any basis, vague and artificially jacked up so as to bring the Complaints within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. It is, thus, pleaded that the Complaints are liable to be dismissed on these short grounds.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission of the Complaints.
7. Mr. Pallav Sisodia, Ld. Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party, submitted that in light of the Constitutional mandate, enshrined in Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India, the Opposite Party cannot be compelled to disclose their defence as well as the evidence in support thereof, till trial in the criminal cases is concluded. It was urged that in criminal cases, arguments on charge are being addressed and if ultimately charge is not framed against the Opposite Party, the present Complaints would be rendered infructuous. It was also strenuously contended that the claims made in the Complaints are without any basis, highly exaggerated, speculative and unrealistic in nature, and therefore, the Complaints are liable to be dismissed. To buttress his stand, Ld. Counsel relied on the decisions of this Commission in Sujata Nath Vs. Popular Nursing Home & Ors. III (2011) CPJ 239 (NC) and Kumari Femy & Ors. Vs. Kavitha V.K. (Dr.) & Ors. I (2012) CPJ 34 (NC).
8. Per contra, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for the Complainants, vehemently submitted that simultaneous criminal proceedings is no bar to the initiation, continuation and adjudication in the Complaints filed under the Act, more so, when the standard of proof in proceedings under the Act and Criminal proceedings is entirely different. In support, Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 622 and Suba Singh & Anr. Vs. Davinder Kaur & Anr. (2011) 13 SCC 296. Strong reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 668 to contend that this Commission does not have the power to relegate the Complainants to the Forums below, because they cannot grant relief beyond the limit of their pecuniary jurisdiction. On the question of pecuniary jurisdiction, Ld. Counsel submitted that at this juncture the question of quantification of claims made in the Complaints, cannot be gone into, and therefore, the Complaints should not be dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.
9. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival stands, we are of the opinion, that the plea of dismissal or stay of proceedings in the Complaints, on the touchstone of the principle of self-incrimination, as enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, is stated to the rejected. Apart from the fact that the very concept of self-incrimination is foreign to the proceedings under the Act wherein the Opposite Party is not an accused as in a criminal proceedings. Neither the rigors of the Evidence Act 1872, nor of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 are attracted in the proceedings under the Act, which provides for an alternative system of consumer justice by summary trial. Hence, we outrightly reject the argument. As regards the question of stay of the proceedings in the Complaints because of pendency of criminal cases against the Opposite Party, we are of the view that this plea also merits rejection. Recently the question of simultaneous prosecution of the criminal proceedings with civil suit, came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras (supra). Relying on the observations of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriff Vs. State of Madras AIR 1954 SCC 397, the Court held that no hard and fast rule could be laid down in this regard. Nonetheless the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is not a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, which is not even the case of the Opposite Party here.
10. We are, therefore, of the view that the trial in criminal cases against the Opposite Party, is no ground for stay of proceedings before the Consumer Fora. As a matter of fact, having regard to the object and intent of the Act, summary trial of Consumer Complaint has to be given precedence over other cases, be it civil or criminal in nature. The question of double jeopardy, self-incrimination or the binding effect of the findings in summary proceedings under the Act, does not arise on facts, at hand. Accordingly, the first preliminary objection fails.
11. We now advert to the second objection relating to the exaggeration of the claim in the Complaints. In Charan Singh (supra), alleging medical negligence, a Complaint was filed before this Commission under the Act, claiming `34 lac by way of compensation from the Respondent hospital on various grounds, under different heads. The Complaint was however, dismissed by a brief order, which reads as follows:
The complainant was drawing a salary of `3000 plus allowances. This is his allegation which is not admitted by the opposite party. Even if we accept this contention is correct and even if we accept that as a result of wrong treatment given in the Hospital he has suffered permanent disability, the claim of `34 lakhs made by the complainant is excessive. We are of the view that this exaggerated claim has been made only for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission.
12. Upon challenge, the order was set aside by the Honble Supreme Court, observing thus:
The National Consumer Forum, in our opinion, was not fair in disposing of the complaint of the appellant by styling his claim as excessive or exaggerated after six years of the pendency of the complaint, and asking the appellant to move the State Commission or the District Forum by making a realistic claim. Whether the claim of the appellant was realistic, exaggerated or excessive, could only have been determined after the appellant had been given an opportunity to prove the case he had set up and established his claim under various heads. It was not fair to call his claim unrealistic, exaggerated or excessive without giving the appellant an opportunity to substantiate his case.
13. It appears from the observations in paragraphs No.11, 14 and 15 (SCC) of the Charan Singhs case (Supra) that the Honble Supreme Court expressed its unhappiness over the said order mainly for the reasons that: (i) the complaint was dismissed after six years of its filing even when the pleadings were complete; (ii) the sole factor taken into consideration to style the claim as unrealistic or exaggerated or excessive was only the amount of salary being drawn by the Complainant; (iii) the impugned order did not record any reasons in support of the conclusions that claim was unrealistic, etc. except for the salary and (iv) because of the jurisdictional limits of the Lower Fora it would not be able to award adequate compensation, even if it was satisfied that in a given case, the Complainant was entitled to more compensation than what was claimed.
14. In our view, none of the afore-noted circumstances exist in the present cases. It is evident from the afore-noted break-up of the compensation claimed, that the claims made under the heads Loss of care, guidance, companionship and life amenities, emotional distress, pain and suffering, punitive damages and Special Damages are purely on ad hoc basis.
It is significant to note that irrespective of the age of the deceased/victim, their financial status etc., all the Complainants have claimed almost the same amount of compensation, ranging between `7,00,00,000/- to `9,00,00,000/- under identical heads. For instance, the compensation/damages claimed under the aforesaid heads, are almost the same in relation to a victim aged 88 years and a victim aged 15 years. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the question whether or not a claim made in a complaint is realistic, exaggerated or excessive is to be determined after the Complainant has been given an opportunity to prove the case he has set up and establish his claim under various heads, but it has also been held that where ex-facie the claim made appears to be unusually high without any basis, as per the case set up in the complaint, a Consumer Fora would be justified in declining to admit the Complaint. As regards the jurisdictional limitations of the Fora below to award compensation more than what is claimed in the complaint, we feel that in view of the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Balram Prasad & Ors. Vs. Kunal Saha & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 384, the State Commission shall not be faced with any such handicap.
15. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Commission in Sujata Nath Vs. Popular Nursing Home & Ors.
- CC No. 60 of 2011. Rejecting the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant was free to claim the compensation as per his own assessment, keeping in view the extent of the loss and the injury suffered by him, and that the complaint could not be disposed of at a preliminary stage on the ground that the claim was exaggerated, vide order dated 08.07.2011, the complaint was dismissed with a direction to the complainant to suitably amend her complaint and file the same before an appropriate Consumer Forum. The said order has been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court, vide an order dated 14.10.2011, in Civil Appeal No. 8642 of 2011. A similar view was taken by this Commission in CC No. 9 of 2010, which was dismissed on the ground that the Complainant had unreasonably inflated the claim for exemplary damages for bringing the complaint with the jurisdiction of this Commission. The Civil Appeal preferred by the Complainant against the said order was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.10.2010.
16. For the aforegoing reasons, we are of the opinion that, as at present, the Complainants have not been able to satisfy us as to on what basis the claims ranging between `7,00,00,000/- to `12,00,00,000/-, have been quantified. We are convinced that the claims have been inflated in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission.
17. Consequently, we decline to admit the Complaints. All the complaints are dismissed accordingly, with liberty to the Complainants to suitably amend their complaints and file the same before an Appropriate Consumer Fora. Needless to clarify that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the Complaints. Since it was pointed out that fresh complaints, at this juncture, may be barred by limitation, as prescribed in Section 24A of the Act, we direct that if the Complainants choose to file fresh complaints, their applications for condonation of delay shall be considered by excluding the time spent before this Commission and keeping in view the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583. No costs.
IA Nos. 1746 to 1761/2014(for stay) The main Complaints having been dismissed, these applications filed by the Opposite Party for stay of proceedings in the Complaints are rendered infructuous and are dismissed accordingly.
..
(D.K. JAIN, J.) PRESIDENT ..
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER Yd*/ar