Order No.

          Date:

          Practically in this case op Apollo Gleneagles Hospital and others by filing an application challenged the maintainability of this case stating inter alia that op nos. 1 & 2 are two different establishments (Hospital) with separate identity and Registration number and under no circumstances it could be said that op no.2 is franchise and/or part of op no.1.  Moreover the op no.2 Hospital is at Kolkata whereas op no.1 Hospital is at Chennai and further op nos. 3 & 4 doctors of op no.1 but not op no.2 and practically complainant made allegations against the op no.1 and its doctors op nos.3 & 4 and in the prayer portion of the complaint, no claim has been made against the op no.2.  So, complainant has approached this Forum not with clean hands and practically this case is not maintainable against op no.2 when relief is not sought for.  So, as per settled principle of law this complaint is not tenable in this Forum and for which this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide any dispute.  But it must be submitted at Chennai for proper redressal.

          On the contrary complainant by filing written objection against the said petition challenging the maintainability of this case has submitted that complainant denies all the allegations as made in the said application and further submitted that Apollo Hospital Group is a body which has been running several hospitals at several places of India and outside and Dr. P.S. Reddy, the founder Chairman of Apollo Hospital and Apollo Hospital is Asia’s largest Healthcare groups and op no.2 is joint venture of Apollo Group of Hospital and Parkway Help of Singapore and op no.2 is franchise of Apollo Group Hospital wherein the op no.1 is also part of head office of Apollo Group Hospital which is also evident from the copy of the internet surveyor copy of the said Apollo Group Hospital and so the present complaint is maintainable in the eye of law and objection as made by the op should be dismissed.

          This matter in dispute is that the jurisdiction of the Forum is under challenge and so that the matter must be heard at first because it is principle of law that before entertaining into the dispute it must be decided by the Forum at first whether the Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction or any other sort of jurisdiction as per Section of 11 of the C.P. Act 1986 and so we shall have to consider whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint.

          In this regard we heard the argument of Ld. Lawyers of both the sides and also considered the vital allegation of the complainant including the prayer portion.

          No doubt from the complaint it is found that the present complainant alleged medical negligence on the part of the doctors No. 3 & 4 who are attached to Apollo Hospital at Chennai.  But anyhow in the complaint, there is no allegation against any doctor or the establishment of Apollo Gleneagles Hospital at Kolkata.  Having gone through the materials as produced by the complainant, it is found that Apollo Group of Hospital of India and Parkway Health of Singapore are running op no.2.  Further from the another document i.e. the company registration certificate, it is found that Apollo Gleneagles of Hospital Ltd. Is a separate establishment registered under Company Registration Act and its registration is No.045223 and category of companies Company Ltd by shares and it’s class of Company is public.  So, apparently it is clear that Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd is a separate institution i.e. a separatecompany other than Apollo Hospital of different places of India.

          May be in the name the word Apollo Hospital is there but that is not sufficient to hold that Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd at Kolkata and Apollo Hospital at Chennai are same company in the hospital trade and management and care trade but they are two separate establishment as per company registration.

          Might be the same persons are the managing director etc. of different hospitals but for that reason Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd at Kolkata and Apollo Hospital at Chennai cannot be treated as same institutions for using the name of Apollo.  In this regard we are well aware of the fact that there are so many companies of TATA Groups starting with name of TATA such as TATA Motors, TATA Chemicals, TATA Finance, TATA Hospital etc.  But for that reason all the companies cannot be treated as single corporate body and same are different establishment and one cannot be treated as franchise of other but may be they are the companies under of TATA Groups.  But as per Company Law whatever it may be the name of the establishment that is not the criteria, criteria is that what is the registration of the particular company.  If it is found that its class of companies public and category companies Ltd. By shares in that case one company in the name of Apollo Hospital at Chennai cannot be treated as part of Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd at Kolkata and that is the settled principle of law.

          So, considering that fact it is clear that Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd at Kolkata (op no.2) is not franchise of op no.1 Apollo Hospital at Chennai but fact remains that op nos. 1 & 2 are two different organizations and two different companies but logo of Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd is used for some business purpose.  Further it is found that there is no allegation against any doctor of Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd at Kolkata not even against any doctor but doctor against whom the complainant has brought allegation is attached with Apollo Hospital at Chennai.  Moreover in the body of the complaint there is no allegation against Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd rather it is proved that complainant has specifically stated that after release from Apollo Hospital at Chennai complainant was treated at Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. wherefrom he recovered from his illness.  So, it is proved that there is no allegation against Apollo Group of Hospital Ltd or his doctor.  But they are satisfied about the duty as discharged by the Apollo Group of Hospital Ltd and his doctor for his recovery from his ailment.

          So, it is found that the treatment against which the complainant has brought allegation was done at Chennai and at the same time it is proved that op no.2 is not a branch office of op no.1, but op nos. 1 & 2 are two separate private limited company having shares and it is private limited company.  Then no part of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of West Bengal or this Forum.

          Further having gone through the material we are satisfied that cause of action arose at Chennai of fact and does not lead us to opine that any cause of action arose in Kolkata and it cannot be the cause of the complainant that just because he resides in Kolkata, if any subsequent event allegedly relatable to an earlier event what conversion of jurisdiction to a Forum where neither the op no.1 or op no.3 & 4 resides or op no.1 has branch office or did anything to the complainant in Kolkata.

          In the aforementioned circumstances in our view we find that no part of cause of action whole or in part arose in Kolkata.  So, this District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant for want of territorial jurisdiction.        In view of the above premises we have no alternative but to allow the application filed by the op challenging the maintainability of this case on 25.09.2013.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the application filed by the op challenging the jurisdiction of this Forum to decide the dispute as filed on 25.09.2013 is hereby allowed on contest without any cause.

          However, complainant shall have his liberty to file complaint before District Forum at Chennai for that purpose and he will invariably get such benefit of time spent before this Forum while seeking relief from the time limit provided u/s 24 of C.P. Act 1986.

          In the result, we pass such order that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complainant is requested to take back the complaint to file the same to proper jurisdiction for his relief.