BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.235 of 2016

Date of Instt. 31.05.2016

Date of Decision : 07.09.2016

Meenakshi Walia aged about 49 years wife of Dr.Mukesh Walia, R/o House No.EF-68, Street Bagh Karam Baksh, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Dr.Lal Path Labs, “Eskay House”, 54, Hanuman Road, New Delhi-110001 through its Authorized Signatory/Incharge.

2.Dr.Lal Path Labs, PSC, Sample Collection Centre, B-29, Community Centre, Opp.Punjab National Bank, B-1, Janakpuri, New Delhi through its Incharge/Authorized Signatory.

3.Dr.Lal Path Labs, Ajit Nagar, Opp.City Garden, near Ajit Nagar Gugudwara, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under The Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Gulshan Arora Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that in December 2014, the complainant was suffering from ulcers on Buccal Musoca (Mouth cavity) and for medical checkup, she contacted doctor i.e. Dr.Viney Aggarwal MDS, who diagnosed the disease as Oral Lichen Planus and thereafter she contacted Dr.Vipan Talwar, D.M.Endocrinology who referred the complainant to Dr.Viram Sood , MD Skin Specialist, who diagnosed the disease as Oral Lichen Planus or Pemphigus Vulgaris and advised for biopsy which was got done from Dr.N.K.Sardana who also diagnosed Lichen Planus Vs. Pemphingus Vulgaris. Thereafter, the complainant got herself visited Dr.Bharat Bhushan, M.D.Path for second opinion and ultimately the complainant got herself checked from Pathological Department of PGI, Chandigarh on 1.6.2015 and the skin specialist at PGI, advised the complainant for D.I.F. The complainant approached OP No.3 who advised the complainant to approach OPs No.1 and 2. The complainant then approached OPs NO.2 at Delhi on 12.6.2015. After taking the test material i.e. tissue pieces collected by a Plastic Surgeon at Delhi on 13.6.2015, the complainant deposited the same for test with OP No.2 and insisted for D.I.F only which is mentioned in the acknowledgment by OP No.2. However, when the complainant received the report from OP No.1, there was no opinion regarding the disease, was given by the OP No.1, rather D.I.F was again prescribed. The complainant submitted that the complainant suffered mental, physical and financial loss and she also suffered great harassment in visiting Delhi on 12.6.2015 and undergone process of taking tissue pieces material for sample which was quite painful but the OPs No.2 & 1 did not give any opinion regarding the disease of the complainant in the report. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice dated 21.7.2015 upon the OPs but in vain. Hence, this complaint was lodged.

2. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have minutely gone through the entire record i.e. documents produced by the complainant.

3. Admittedly, the complainant went to New Delhi for prescribed test i.e. DIF test on the advice of Skin Specialist at PGI dated 11.6.2015. The complainant gave the test material i.e. tissue pieces, which were collected by the Plastic Surgeon of OP No.2 on 13.6.2015 at Delhi and the complainant deposited the said test material with OP No.2 at Delhi and the alleged report was issued by OP No.1 at Delhi in which no opinion regarding disease was given by OP No.1 as alleged by the complainant, rather DIF was again prescribed. The complainant did not produce any such report given by OP No.1 to prove the date or month of that opinion report. All this fully proves that the complainant was advised aforesaid DIF test by the Skin Specialist at PGI, Chandigarh and the complainant gave the test material i.e. tissue pieces collected by the plastic surgeon of OP No.2 and deposited the same with OP No.2 at Delhi and the alleged report was also given by OP No.1 at Delhi, which according to the complainant, was not proper report which tantamounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2. Both these parties are having their office at Delhi. The test material of complainant was collected by the plastic surgeon of OP No.2 at Delhi. The test material was deposited by the complainant with OP No.2 at Delhi and the alleged report was also given by OP No.1 at Delhi. So the entire cause of action accrued to the complainant at Delhi/New Delhi. As such, this Forum at Jalandhar has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint against OPs No.1 & 2.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant approached OP No.3 at Jalandhar who advised the complainant for such DIF test at Delhi in OP No.2 lab. So, cause of action accrued to the complainant at Jalandhar also. Here, we do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the complainant because OP No.3 did nothing in the collection of test material and the test report given by OPs No.1 & 2 to the complainant. He has simply advised the complainant to approach OP No.2 at New Delhi because the said DIF test is done only at New Delhi by OP No.2.

5. In the light of above discussion, we hold that this District Forum at Jalandhar has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint against OPs No.1 & 2 whose offices are situated at New Delhi. As such, this complaint is not maintainable here at Jalandhar. Resultantly, it is ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant for filing the same before the appropriate forum/ authority having territorial jurisdiction. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

07.09.2016 Member President