24-04-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheets.
1. Heard the parties on the preliminary objection filed on behalf the parties.
2. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the O.Ps. submitted that the complainant has claimed imaginary and exaggerated figures in order to bring this case within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. He submitted that no details whatsoever has been given with regard to the column 10 in which claimed value has been mentioned as Rs. 10 lacs approx. said to have been incurred by the complainant towards medical expenses and Rs. 5 Lakhs towards further medical and allied expenses. Further the compensation of Rs. 50 lacs towards physical and mental agony is highly exaggerated, He relied on order dated 28.5.2009 passed in Revision Petition No. 770/2009 by Hon’ble National Commission in the case of CHL Apollo Hospital vs Dr. ( Mrs.) Jasbir Gupta .
3. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the complainant relying on the judgement reported in (2000) 7 SCC 668 Charan Singh Vs Healing Touch Hospital submitted that the preliminary objection has no merit. Referring to Sections 11,12 (3) (4), 13 (7) (4), 17 and 18 of the Consumer Protection Act he submitted that the pecuniary jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the compensation ‘claimed’. He further submitted that there no provision in the Consumer Protection Act for hearing on the preliminary objection. He lastly submitted that this complaint case is pending before this Forum for about two years
4. It appears that the complainant has not given any detail whatsoever of the amounts claimed against the principal amount claimed i.e. Rs.10 lacs toward medical expenses incurred and for the claim of Rs. 5 lacs towards further medical and allied expenses . The complainant has only alleged deficiency in service in the complaint petition and the evidence on oath. Further the claim of Rs. 50 lacs towards physical and mental agony is also without any basis.
5. In the case of Charan Singh (Supra), in the order of the National Commission, impugned before the Supreme Court, on calculation of the alleged claim, it was held that exaggerated claim was made only for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the National Commission, after the case remained pending, for six years.
6. In the case of CHL Apollo Hospital (supra), the Hon’ble National Commission referring to the judgement reported in (2008) 7 SCC 166 interalia observed that, question of pecuniary jurisdiction has to be adjudicated upon first, before any forum enters into the adjudication on merits. The case of Charan Singh (supra) was also considered. In the present case as already noticed, the complainants have not given any details or any basis for the claims made in the complaint petition either in the pleadings or in the evidence. Therefore it is not possible to accept that the complaint is maintainable before this Commission in its present form.
7. In the result the preliminary objection succeeds. The complainants are permitted to file a fresh complaint petition before the learned District Forum, if so advised. If it is filed along with limitation petition within six weeks, it is expected that the delay will be condoned.
With these observations and findings, this complaint case stands disposed off.
This matter was heard by the bench consisting of the President and the Member Mr. Ajit Kumar. After the order was dictated with his consent, Mr. Ajit Kumar had to rush to Bombay for treatment of cancer. He informed that he may not be available for about a month. Therefore this order is being pronounced and signed by the President, Keeping in view the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 25.02.2013, passed in W.P. (C) No.30939 of 2010 (N) - P.K. Jose - vs - M. Aby & Ors.
Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.
Ranchi,
Dated:-24-04-2015
