Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):

Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant; Sh. M.K. Kohli, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 and Sh. Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 are present.

The opposite parties have filed preliminary objections to the effect that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter in question and, as such, the consumer complaint be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.  Learned counsel for the opposite parties have relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Arun Goel (Dr.) Vs. Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan and another; III (2014) CPJ 478A (NC), wherein it has been held that the cause of action arose at the place where the treatment was made by the doctor and not at the place wherefrom the patient was referred.  In the said cited case, the doctor from Moradabad referred the patient to doctor at Delhi and the patient got treatment at Delhi.  It was held that the doctor at Moradabad was merely a referral doctor and the cause of action arose in Delhi.  Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences and another Vs. Radhey Shyam and another; III (2015) CPJ 151 (NC).

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Anil G. Bhatia (Dr.) Vs. Sanjay Kedia and others; I (2015) CPJ 630 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that, “State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaint against all the opposite parties irrespective of the fact that opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 neither reside nor have branch office within territorial jurisdiction of State Commission”.

We have perused the judgments cited before us by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the consumer complaint.

In the case at hand, no relief has been sought by the complainant against the opposite party No. 1 – BHEL (Main) Hospital, Ranipur, Haridwar.  It was also mentioned that the opposite party No. 1 is a formal party to the consumer complaint.  In the case law cited by the learned counsel for the complainant, relief was sought against the referral doctor as well as the doctor who has treated the patient and amount of compensation of        Rs. 25,00,000/- was demanded jointly and severally against all the opposite parties.  Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the complainant is of no help to the complainant, since no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.  Since the patient was treated at New Delhi by the opposite party No. 2, doctor at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, therefore, the cause of action has arisen within the territory of New Delhi and the opposite party No. 2 also reside and carries on his profession within the territory of New Delhi. 

In view of above, the preliminary objections filed by the opposite parties are fit to be allowed and the same are hereby allowed.  Consequently, the consumer complaint is returned to the complainant for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, with a liberty to the complainant to file the same before the appropriate Forum having territorial jurisdiction in the matter.  No order as to costs.