1.      The present Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the        Appellant against Order dated 25.10.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Complaint Case No. 359/2016.

2.    In the Complaint Case, it is stated that Appellant/Complainant met with an accident on 23.09.2013 due to which his right leg got seriously injured.  On the very next day i.e. on 24.09.2013, the Appellant was admitted to Respondent No.1 hospital.  The Appellant was treated by Respondent No.2. The Complainant suffered fracture in the mid shaft to tibia and in the upper shaft of fibula in his right leg, apart from other injuries. Respondent No.2 recommended that the Appellant should undergo surgery for fixation of titanium plates and 10 screws. Considering the expertise and reputation of Respondent No.1, the Appellant underwent “ORIF with 10 hole LCP (3.5 MM) done under SA”, performed by Respondent No.2 on 24.09.2013 at Respondent No.1 hospital. The post-operative x-ray report mentioned “Fracture mid shaft to tibia with fixation plate and screws in situ”. In the post-operative x-ray, 11 instead of 10 screws could be seen. The Appellant was prescribed various medicines as well as physiotherapy and other treatment and was discharged from the hospital on 27.09.2013. The Appellant paid an amount of Rs.1,28,581/- to the hospital as medical expenses.

3.      The hole in his fractured leg was not healing and he experienced extreme pain in his operated leg.          The Complainant again visited the hospital on 05.03.2014 and 17.05.2014, wherein he consulted Respondent No. 2 about the worsening condition of his leg and heavy flow of pus.  However, on both the occasions, Respondent No. 2 prescribed x-ray and pain killers and antibiotics which the Complainant took for 6 months without any improvement.  All this time the Complainant was completely bed-ridden and could not walk, much less even stand up. 

4.      Subsequently, the Complainant was operated upon by Respondent No. 2 on 28.05.2014, whereby the titanium plates and implants fitted in the right leg were removed and he was discharged from the hospital.

5.      The Complainant submitted that even after the implants were removed from his right leg, the x-ray showed that there was still some metallic body in the bone of his right leg.  In November, 2014, the Complainant sought second opinion from a specialist at Vardaan Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. The Complainant got another x-ray of his leg done, whereupon he was shocked to learn that he had Osteomyelitis, which the Respondents failed to diagnose. On 19.11.2014, the Complainant underwent surgery at Vardhan Hospital, where the infected implant in the leg of the Complainant was removed.  To his utter shock and horror, the implant turned out to be a stainless steel drill bit which had broken and lodged itself in the bone of the Complainant during the initial surgery on 24.09.2013.  There were other small particles of stainless steel lodged inside his bone and could not be removed and the same could cause pathological fracture or spread of infection and even pose risk of diseases/ailments such as cancer.  The conduct of the Respondents demonstrated gross negligence on their part.  Thus, the Appellant filed a Complaint, alleging medical negligence on the part of the Respondents.

6.      The Respondents filed separate Written Statements.  Respondent No. 1 to 3 contended in their reply that State Commission Punjab had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter. The Complaint was also barred by limitation. Respondent No.1 and 2 contended, in their written statement, that the Appellant met with a road accident on 23.09.2013 and was initially taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. Then, he was brought to the Emergency of Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi/Respondent No.1. The Appellant suffered fracture in his right leg and of nasal bone. Considering the severity of his fracture, right leg reduction and internal fixation(ORIF) of tibia was planned. On 24.09.2013, surgery was undertaken after the consent of the Appellant by a team of Doctors headed by Respondent No.2. The surgery was conducted, as per standard medical protocols and the Appellant was discharged from the Hospital on 27.09.2013. As per discharge card, the Appellant was advised to follow up with Respondent No.2 at the hospital. Thereafter, on follow up, POP was applied for 3 months on the fractured portion. No other prescription or any other follow up with Respondent No.2 at the hospital has been enclosed by the Appellant with his Complaint. Thereafter, on 27.05.2014, Appellant was admitted in Respondent No.1 hospital where his implant removal surgery was conducted and he was discharged on 28.05.2014. Respondent No.2 conducted surgery upon the Appellant on 24.09.2013 and then on 28.05.2014. The Surgery was conducted as per standard medical protocol only.

7.      Respondent No.3 contended in his written statement that the Complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The Appellant is not a Consumer of Respondent No.3 as he had not taken any treatment at Fortis Hospital, Mohali and no payment was ever received from him by Respondent No.3 for the treatment rendered by Respondent No.1 and 2. Even the legal notice dated 09.06.2015 was neither addressed to Respondent No.3 nor any allegations of negligence qua Respondent No.3 has been levelled in the Complaint made by the Appellant.  

8.      Respondent No.4 contended in its written statement that the Appellant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and Complaint is totally false and baseless. No cause of action arose against Respondent No.4 as there is no privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondent No.4.   Thus, the Complaint was not maintainable.

9.      The State Commission, vide order dated 25.10.2018, dismissed the Complaint of the Appellant by holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the Complaint as no part of cause of action accrued within its jurisdiction at Mohali. The Appellant is at liberty to file his complaint before State Commission Delhi. The period for which he has been prosecuting the Complaint can be sought to be condoned by the concerned State Commission under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963. The registry was directed to return the Complaint along with all requisite documents produced by the Appellant to him against proper receipt.

10.    Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Appellant filed the present Appeal before this Commission.

11.    Heard the Appellant in person.  He reiterated the contentions as stated above.

12.    We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.  The short point involved in the First Appeal is with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission Punjab, before which the Consumer Complaint was made. 

13.    The Complainant should have filed the Complaint where the cause of action arose.  It is clear from the available record that no part of cause of action in the said Complaint, had accrued within the jurisdiction of State Commission, Punjab. Thus, the State Commission has rightly dismissed the Complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.  We, therefore, uphold the orders of the State Commission and dismiss the First Appeal.  However, the Complainant is given the liberty to file a fresh Complaint at the place where the cause of action arose in the present case.  There shall be no order as to costs.