O R D E R (ORAL)

       Challenge in this First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd., the Consultant Cardiologist and Consultant Urologist in the said Hospital, Opposite Parties No.1, 3 and 4 in the original Complaint, is to the order dated 18.3.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa at Cuttack (for short “the State Commission”) in Misc. Case No.72/2002.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the application filed by the Appellants herein for dismissal of the Complaint, being C.D. No.16/1999, filed by the Complainants before the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneshwar (for short “the District Forum”) on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.  We may note that the said application was filed before the State Commission pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court of Orissa, vide order dated 27.8.1999 in O.C.J. No.10092/1999.

Despite service of notice, the Complainants, impleaded in the present Revision Petition as Respondents No.2-5, being the legal representatives of late Smt.Haramani Dash – initially impleaded as Respondent No.1 in this Appeal, remain unrepresented.  Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the Appellants and Respondent No.6.

       The short grievance of the Appellants in this Appeal is that since the procedure in question was performed on the deceased/Patient by the doctors at Chennai, no cause of action had arisen in the State of Orissa and therefore, the Complaint filed before the District Forum at Khurda, Orissa, could not be entertained by the said Forum.

       Having heard the learned counsel and perused the order impugned in this Appeal, we are of the opinion that the State Commission has committed a material illegality in dismissing the application.  We are of the view that the State Commission has failed to correctly appreciate the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. - (2010) 1 SCC 135.  We are in agreement with the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants that no cause of action had in fact arisen in the State of Orissa conferring jurisdiction on the Consumer Fora based in Orissa to entertain the Complaint.

       Resultantly, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.  However, bearing in mind the fact that the Complaint was filed as far back as in the year 1999, it would be appropriate and expedient and in the larger interest of the Complainants to invoke the principle underlying Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and direct the District Forum at Khurda to return the afore-stated Complaint to the Complainants along with all the documents filed by the parties for being presented before the District Forum at Chennai for adjudication on the Complaint on merits, without reference to the period of limitation.

       In order to forestall any plea of prejudice being raised, particularly by the Opposite Parties, we permit all the parties to the Complaint to lead additional evidence, if so advised, within a reasonable period, as may be granted by the concerned District Forum.  In case, written version had not been filed by the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, we permit them to do so within 30 days of the date of receipt of the notice in the Complaint.

       The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.