Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/61

Sukhwanjot Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gera Nursing Home - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.61 of 24.01.2018

Date of Decision            :   12.06.2018

Sukhmanjot Singh aged about 1 years son of Shri Gurwinder Singh and Major Kaur (since deceased)(minor) through his next friend, guardian Karnail Singh (grandfather of Sukhmanjot Singh) son of Shri Bachan Singh resident of VPO Nasrali, Tehsil Khana, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Gera Nursing Home, Maloud, Khanna District Ludhiana through its Doctors Dr.Davinder Paul Gera and Dr.Nishi Gera.

2.Dr.Davinder Paul Gera c/o Gera Nursing Home, Maloud, Khanna District Ludhiana.

3.Dr.Nishi Gera w/o Dr.Davinder Paul Gera c/o Gera Nursing Home, Maloud, Khanna.

…Opposite parties

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

For complainant            :        Sh.R.S.Mand, Advocate and Ms.Sumandeep Kaur, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Mother of minor complainant had already expired. Complainant is looked after by his grandfather and that is why complaint filed through his Grandfather as next friend/guardian. Manjot Kaur, mother of complainant was quite                           healthy and her treatment was going with OPs. OPs always assured Manjot Kaur regarding safe delivery of child by her by claiming that better treatment for delivery of newly born child will be provided. OPs claimed that they are in possession of modern technology to give birth to a new child. Mother of complainant earlier got treatment from Dr.Malhi. However, at the time of delivery of child, said Manjot Kaur was admitted in OP1 hospital on assurance given by OP2 and OP3 that best treatment as per modern technique of safe delivery of child will be provided. However, at the time of delivery of child, sufficient technology and equipment was not available with OPs and that is why case of Manjot Kaur was not handled properly. Blood continued oozing out from the body of Manjot Kaur. OPs were not having arrangement of ambulance even. Due to negligence on the part of OPs and non-availability of proper accommodation as well as specialist doctors, Manjot Kaur had to be shifted to Apollo Hospital very late and ultimately she expired. It is claimed that due to insufficient treatment provided to Manjot Kaur by Ops, her death took place. FIR No.98 dated 5.12.2016 u/s 304/34 IPC at P.S.Maloud, Ludhiana even was registered. Compensation for loss of Manjit Kaur of amount of Rs.18 lac with interest @8% per annum and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/- more claimed.

2.                Initially, complaint was filed for claiming interest @18% per annum with damages of Rs.18 lac, but later on application for amendment of complaint filed for seeking interest @8% per annum w.e.f.2.12.2016. That application for amendment dated 5.02.2018 was allowed and thereafter, amended complaint on those lines was required to be filed, but factum regarding claiming of interest @8% per annum w.e.f.2.12.2016 inadvertently not mentioned in the amended complaint.

3.                Arguments at the admission stage were heard.

4.                As compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.18 lac with interest @8% per annum w.e.f.2.12.2016 is sought along with litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/- and as such, it is obvious that if aggregate of the amount of interest, compensation and litigation expenses calculated, then the same goes beyond the limit of Rs.21 lac. Interest @8% per annum calculated on amount of Rs.18 lac comes to Rs.1,44,000/- per annum. This complaint was filed on 24.01.2018 and as such, interest for period of two years will come to Rs.2,88,000/-. By adding amount of Rs.22,000/- i.e. the amount of litigation expenses, the valuation of relief claimed will go beyond Rs.21,10,000/-. This Forum has jurisdiction to deal with cases upto the pecuniary limit of Rs.20 lac only. However, the aggregate of relief claimed goes beyond the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of Rs.20 lac and as such, certainly present complaint before this Forum is not maintainable and same deserves to be returned back to the complainant for presentation before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh.

5.                           As per law laid down in case of Bishwanath Choudhary Vs. Dr. Anand Gautam Das Gupta, 2016(1) CPJ 17 (Hon’ble Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi), in view of Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, question of pecuniary jurisdiction to be decided on the basis of claim made and not on the basis of relief granted. Same is the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2016(4) CPR 83. View taken in this case further reiterated by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No.1364 of 2017 titled as M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 2 others Vs. Lalitha Saini,  decided on 21.08.2017. Rather in this latest mentioned case of M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 2 others (supra) it has been specifically held that the decision rendered by larger bench of Hon’ble National Commission in case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (supra)  is binding not only on the Fora below, but even on the other benches of Hon’ble National Commission, unless the same happens to be  a decision rendered by the larger bench than that of the one decided in case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd  (ibid). So this Forum is bound by decision of Hon’ble National Commission and as such it has to be ascertained as to whether really this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint or not.

6.                In case of Gurbax Singh Bains Vs. M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh and another, 2014(3) CPC 390 (NC) it has been held that if the total value of the claimed relief exceeds limit of Rs.20.00 lakhs including the amount of claimed compensation, then the District Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction. Same is the position in the case before us because here the value of claimed relief is Rs.21,10,000/-. It is the aggregate value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by the consumer plus the amount of claimed interest and the compensation amount, which are to be taken together for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, is the crux of law laid down in case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd  (ibid)  and also in case of M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 2 others Vs. Lalitha Saini (supra). So virtually the claimed reliefs through this complaint goes beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction limit of this Forum. Even in case of Kumari Lama versus General Manager ICICI Bank Ltd., 2014 (74) RCR (Civil)748, it has been held that aggregate of the reliefs claimed including that of refund amount, claimed compensation amount and interest to be taken into consideration for finding the pecuniary jurisdiction. In this case it has been specifically mentioned that if the District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction, then order passed by the Forum will be perverse in the eyes of law and the same being illegal, liable to be set aside.  

7.                As this Forum lacks  pecuniary jurisdiction and as such, complaint deserves to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and order passed accordingly.

8.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint returned to the complainant for presentation before the Hon ‘ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh because this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the claimed reliefs. Copy of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules. 

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Gulati)                              (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:12.06.2018

Gurpreet Sharma.