ORDER

SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT



    In the case of  Oswal Fine Arts v. H.M.T. I (1991) CPJ 330, the
Hon’ble National Commission  has held  that when a matter is
sub-judice before the ordinary Civil Courts of the land, the Consumer
Commission cannot and will not entertain any claim for compensation in
respect of the same subject matter. It observed as follows:



(ii) Another formidable objection to the maintainability of this claim
is that the matter is sub-judice before the Madras High Court on its
original side where the complainant has instituted a suit for damages
against the respondent based on the identical cause of action. There
is also a cross suit filed by the respondent company in the city Civil
Court at Bangalore claiming certain reliefs against the Complainant in
respect of the same transaction. When the matter is, thus, sub-judice
before the ordinary Civil Courts of the land. this Commission cannot
and will not entertain any claim for compensation in respect of the
identical subject-matter.



       In the complaint before us , a similar situation exists. The
complainant herein has filed a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act alleging negligence  in her treatment on the part of
the OP hospital.  She has also alleged that the OP hospital had
fabricated the treatment record and further had charged money for
medicines which were not administered and for visits of the treating
doctor which had infact not taken place.   The OP hospital on the
other hand has filed  a  Civil Suit in the court for recovery on the
ground that the complainant herein had left the hospital without
making payment of its bills.  In the written statement filed by the
defendant in the said suit (complainant herein) , all the grounds
which have been raised in the present complaint have been taken.  It
has been alleged that the bill raised by the OP hospital is not
payable as it contains charges of medicine not administered and
further contains charges on account of the visits of the treating
doctor which had not taken place.  Some more issues have also been
raised in the suit by the complainant herein which also form part of
the subject matter of the present complaint.



 Keeping in view, the judgment quoted above , we are of the considered
opinion that the present complaint and the Civil Suit cannot be
continued simultaneously.  Since, there are disputes of fact which
need to be determined by means of evidence to be led on both sides
including the minute and detailed cross examination of the witnesses ,
the civil court is the appropriate forum to decide the controversy
between the parties.  However, since the present complaint seeks
damages and compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of
the OP hospital, it would be appropriate to adjourn this complaint
sine-die to be revived as and when the order is passed by the Civil
Court.

With these observations, we adjourn the complaint sine-die.



     Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.



  File be consigned to record room.



Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................