Karnataka

Dakshina Kannada

CC/110/2015

Ishwara Naika B. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Dr. Anil Thomas - Opp.Party(s)

Chandrashekara N.G

17 Jun 2017

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/110/2015
 
1. Ishwara Naika B.
S/o. Ramanna Naika Aged about 58 years Residing at Bommar House Nellur Kemraje Village Sullia Taluk D.K. District
Dakshina Kannada
Karnataka
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. 1.Dr. Anil Thomas
Chairman of Oncology and Surgical Oncologist Preethi Centre for Oncology No. 873 M.G. Road Lakshmipuram Mysore 570004
2. 2. The Special Officer To Chief MinisterChief Minister s Secretariat
Vidhana Soudha Bangalore 560 001
Dakshina Kannada
Karnataka
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Vishweshwara Bhat D PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Lavanya . M. Rai MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Chandrashekara N.G, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 17 Jun 2017
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 17th JUNE 2017

PRESENT

   SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI                 : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.110/2015

(Admitted on 10.03.2015)

Mr. IshwaraNaika B,

S/o RamannaNaika,

Aged about 58 years,

Residing at Bommar House,

NellurKemraje Village,

Sullia Taluk, D.K District.

                                                            ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri CNG)

VERSUS

1.  Dr. Anil Thomas,

     Chairman of Oncology and

     Surgical Oncologist,

    Preethi Centre for Oncology,

     No.873, M.G. Road, Lakshmipuram,

     Mysore  570 004.

2. The Special Officer to Chief Minister,

    Chief Ministers Secretariat,

    VidhanaSoudha,

    Bangalore  560 001.

                                                             …............OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri JP)

(Opposite Party No.2: Ex parte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

     The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant’swife was suffering from Non Hodgkins Lymphoma had taken treatment beforeopposite party No.1 since 07.03.2012 to 05.12.2012 and was undertaken regular treatment for  9 months for which opposite party No.1 charged Rs.87,000/ which was entirely paid which was admitted by opposite party No.1 thereafter she discontinuedtreatment and died on 11.1.13 at Puttur.  During the period of taking treatment opposite party No.1 issued break up of approximate cost estimate of Rs. 98,000/ by letter dated 10th March 2012.  The patienthaveclaimedmonetary relief from 2nd opposite party.  Opposite party No.1 again issued another break-up of approximate cost estimate of Rs.1,10,000/ byletter dated 21stMay 2012.  By allowing the claimopposite party No.2 sanctioned monetary relief of Rs.30,000 by intimated through letter dated 8th November  2012.  The complainant is entitled for obtaining original medical expenditure bill issued by the hospital within 15 days asopposite party No.1 is liable to issue the same but in spite of repeated demands and request opposite party No.1 refuse to issue the same even afterdiscontinue of treatment and demand to pay total amount as estimated in the break up of approximate cost of Rs.1,10,000/.  Even after legal notices this amountsto deliberate negligent act of opposite parties and deficiency in service for causing inconvenience, hardship, financial loss, mental agony and restlessness.  Hence seeks reliefs claimed in the complaintfor directing opposite party No.1 to issue original medical bill and also direction to opposite party No.2 to release the sanctioned monetary relief and also compensation.

2.     Opposite party No.1 in the version contends none of the opposite parties above are residing within the jurisdiction of this Forum hence has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Complaint is belated and barred by limitation. The patient has paid a total sum of Rs.87,000/ and is still due and another sum of Rs.21,400 to opposite party No.1 for the treatment taken.   First opposite party has given a revised estimate from Rs.98,000 to Rs.1,10,000/ including the expenditure incurred by the patient, before presenting herself for the treatment to the opposite party No.1.  The amount of Rs.21,400 demanded by opposite party is only for the credit given to the patient for treatment take by her. The complainantcontact first opposite party personally after the last visit on 05.12.2012.

3.     It is further claimed deceased patient was registered for Oncology of which opposite party No.1 is the Chairman for the first time on 07.03.2012 diagnosed as having non hodgkin’s lymphoma and was given a total of 14 cycles of chemotherapy.  She and her relatives expressed they are poor and difficulty in paying the amount.  The patient requested that the expenditure incurred by her before 07.03.2012 outside Preethi Centre be also included and hence a revised estimate for Rs.1,10,000/ was given by 1st opposite party on 21.05.2012documents are only estimates given by the 1st opposite party. On 07.03.2012 she was planned for 6 cycles of Chemotherapy treatment given once in every 21 days and radiation.Out of this planned treatment patient received only 6 cycle of Chemotherapy from 10.03.2012 to 30.06.2012 for which she paidof Rs.41,400/ out of Rs.51,600 and balance of Rs.10,200/ for treatment delivered for the above 6 cycles.  Radiation costing of Rs.40,000/ in Chief Minister’s Relief Fund cost estimate was remaining after 6 cycles of treatment.  Due to this she was started on salvage regime which was not considered at the time of Chief Ministers Relief Fund cost estimate.After getting same CMfund letter the patient relatives did not contact the 1st opposite party in person after their last visit on 05.12.2012.Thecircumstances mentioned in the allegation made are concocted hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.

4.     In support of the above complaint Mr. Ishwara Naikafiled affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered to the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C10 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Anil Thomas (RW1) Chairman of Oncology & Surgical Oncologist, also filed affidavit evidence and answered to the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R16 as detailed in the annexure here below.

5.      In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

  1. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
  2. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
  3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
  4. What order?

     The learned counsels for both sides file notes of argument.  We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties.   Our findings on the points are as under follows:

               Point No. (i)  : Negative

               Point No. (ii) : Does not survive for Consideration

               Point No.(iii) : As per the final order

REASONS

6.        POINT NO. (i):Section 11 of the C P Act read:

11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum (1) Subject to the other provisions of this At, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs).

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,

(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 work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

7.      Thus it is clear as it is not the case of the complainant, any portion of the treatment taken by the complainant in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum at Mangalore. Rather it is the specific case of the complainant that the treatment to his wife was given by opposite party No.1 at Mysore. None of the opposite parties are residing within the territorial limits of this Forum.  Hence this Forum has noterritorial jurisdictionto entertain the complaint. Hence on that count itself the complaint is liable to be rejected.

POINT NO. (ii)& (iii):  Hence Point No.1 answered in the negative.  Thus point No.2 and No.3 does not survive for consideration.

POINTS No. (iii):Wherefore the following

ORDER

The complaint is rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 7 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 17thJune 2017)

 

         MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT

(LAVANYA M. RAI)                          (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum              D.K. District Consumer Forum

          Mangalore                                                      Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. IshwaraNaika

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1:                : The copy of treatment summary

Ex.C2:                 : The copy of death certificate

Ex.C3: 10.03.2012: The copy of approximate cost estimate

Ex.C4: 21.05.2012: The copy of approximate cost estimate

Ex.C5: 08.11.2012: The copy of letter issued by opposite party No.2

Ex.C6: 28.08.2014: The copy of letter issued by opposite party No.2

Ex.C7: 21.12.2012: The copy of Notice

Ex.C8: 27.01.2015: The copy of Notice

Ex.C9: 05.01.2013: The copy of reply letter issued by opposite party No.1

Ex.C10: 29.01.2015: The copy of reply letter issued by opposite party No.1

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Mr. Anil Thomas,Chairman of Oncology & Surgical Oncologist

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1:                 : Patient treatment summary pertaining to Mrs. Saraswathi

Ex.R2: 10.03.2012: O/c cash receipt No.3273

Ex.R3: 07.04.2012: O/c cash receipt No.048

Ex.R4: 28.04.2012: O/c cash receipt No.272

Ex.R5: 19.05.2012: O/c cash receipt No.468

Ex.R6: 09.06.2012: O/c cash receipt No.662

Ex.R7: 30.06.2012: O/c cash receipt No.895

Ex.R8: 25.07.2012: O/c cash receipt No.1164

Ex.R9: 16.08.2012: O/c cash receipt No.1415

Ex.R10: 06.09.2012: O/c cash receipt No.1653

Ex.R11: 02.10.2012: O/c cash receipt No.1911

Ex.R12: 29.10.2012: O/c cash receipt No.2156

Ex.R13: 19.11.2012: O/c cash receipt No.2349

Ex.R14: 26.11.2012: O/c cash receipt No.2417

Ex.R15: 05.12.2012: O/c cash receipt No.2519

Ex.R16:                 : Consent letter given by the patients relative to undergo chemo therapy along with the request letter

 

Dated: 17.06.2017:                   PRESIDENT  

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Vishweshwara Bhat D]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Lavanya . M. Rai]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.