DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL) ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/155/2015

No. DF/ Central/                                                                      Date:

Sh. Pratap Singh Adhikari

S/o Late Govind Singh Adhikari,

R/o B – 157, 2^nd Floor,

Gali No.  9,  East Vinod Nagar,

Delhi  - 110091

                                                                                              …..Complainant

 VERSUS

M/S  MAX Super Specialist Hospital (Regd.)

108A, Indraprastha Extension,

Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092       

                                                                                    .…. Opposite Party

Coram  :  Ms. Rekha Rani, President                        

                Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member  

                Shri R.C. Meena, Member  

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1.   Instant complaint was filed by Sh. Pratap Singh Adhikari (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date ( in short the Act) pleading therein that on 20/02/2014 on account of acute stomach pain he got himself admitted in Max Super Specialist Hospital at Parparganj (in short OP) where he was treated and was discharged on 28/02/2014.  The treating doctor did not disclose to the complainant that a biliary stent was inserted in his body. 

As after his discharge from OP hospital he had acute pain in his abdomen on 18/03/2014 he visited OP hospital where the doctor advised him certain tests and from the result of the tests he came to know that a stent had

been inserted in his body during his treatment in February 2014 which fact was never disclosed to him at the time of his treatment.On 03/04/2014 OP hospital

advised him to be admitted in the Hospital for stent removal. On 07/04/2014 he deposited Rs. 4400/- for stent removal operation.He was admitted in the OP hospital and preparations for the operation were made.But on the last moment when OP Hospital realized that complainant is a beneficiary of CGHS it stopped operation with a view to gain more money.On 08/04/2014 complainant visited OP hospital for admission and he was given details of expenses of treatment for Rs. 39020/-. When complainant wanted to deposit the payment in cash OP hospital refused stating that since he was a pension card holder he was required to bring permission letter from the concerned department/ authority.

On 09/04/2014 he visited CGHS dispensary and applied for permission letter. The dispensary officials asked him to go to Safdarjung Hospital. Complainant obtained permission letter and deposited the same with OP hospital but officials of OP hospital instead of taking care of the complainant stared misbehaving with him.Condition of complainant started deteriorating on account of delay in his treatment.

Disappointed with OP hospital complainant went to Sant Parmanand Hospital, Civil Lines. Delhi where the stent was removed and he spent Rs. 11018/-.Complainant has sought direction to OPs to pay him Rs. 80000/- towards medical expenses with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from April 2014 till realisation and Rs. 2 Lac towards compensation for causing him pain and agony.

OP hospital is situated at Indraprastha Extension Patpartanj. Treatment of the complainant was carried out at OP Hospital at Indraprastha Extension, Patparganj, Delhi.

The submission that OP has its Hospitals at various other places in Delhi or that its ambulances pick & drop patients throughout Delhi does not make any difference.

     Said contention was raised before Our State Commission in Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn & Anr.  First Appeal No. 488/2017 & was discarded vide order dated 01.11.2017 observing as follows:

                        ‘’6. Now coming to the point of Delhi being one district, it may be mentioned that appellant has relied upon decision of this Commission dated 31.10.07 in RP No. 07/18 titled as Singhs Dental Hospital vs. Shri Amrit Lal Dureja and decions of this Commission dated 17.03.10 in FA No. 10/220 titled as Holy Family Hospital vs. Amit Kumar, decision of this Commission in FA 216/2012 titled as Mahesh Ram Nath vs. the Secretary cum Commissioner (Transport) and other and decision in Saranjeet Singh vs. Anil Kumar Dixit III (2010) CPJ 181.

7.   The District Forum distinguished the above decision on the ground that the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide notification dated 20.04.99 divided Delhi in 10 districts defining their respective area.  Notification was issued for being complied with instead of being flouted.

8.   Obviously the purpose of defining jurisdiction was to regularize and distribute the work to bring certainty instead of creating chaos.  If all the litigants prefer to chose one forum, that forum would be overburdened and remaining nine forums would become idle.

9.  Over and above that we may mention that appellant of FA 216/12 namely Mahesh Ram Nath preferred Revision Petition in National Commission which was registered as No. 2816/2012.  The  said petition came up for hearing on 17.08.12.  National Commission called for report from President of this Commission as to whether there was any demarcation of territorial jurisdiction and if so whether the same was being followed or not and if not for what reasons.  On 27.09.12 it was observed that territorial jurisdiction of various district forums of  Delhi was a matter of great public importance.  Therefore Secretary & Commissioner, Deptt of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was directed to appear in person on 10.10.12 so that position can be clarified as to implementation of the notification.  Mr. Shakti Bangar, Asstt. Director assured the National Commission to communicate directions of the National Commission to officers concerned for compliance.  National Commission was informed by some advocate that notification relating to distribution of jurisdiction in various consumer fora functioning in Delhi was not being followed in its letter and spirit.  Deptt of

Consumer Affairs was directed to furnish reports from all the district forums as to whether they were strictly following the notification and if not, they were to give the number of cases which have been entertained/ decided contrary to the stipulation contained in notification.

10.       The Director, Consumer Affairs issued a circular No. F.50(21)/2003/F&S/CA/1053-1054 dated 07.11.12 conveying the feelings of National Commission regarding not following the notification in its letter and spirit.  It was also conveyed that National Commission took a very serious view and stated that inspite of notification promulgated by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20.04.99 clearly demarcating jurisdiction district wise, District Forums were violating the order.  On the basis of the said letter Registrar of this Commission wrote a letter No. F.1/(Misc.)/SC/2012/5045 dated 08.11.12 advising President, District Forums to strictly comply with the directions i.e. notification.’’

6.     On our specific query to satisfy us that this forum has territorial jurisdiction learned counsel for complainant referred to judgment of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Education & Research Society & Ors. verses Canara Bank and Others II (1991) CPJ 148 in support of his submission that consumer can file complaint against a corporation even at a place where it is carrying on business even if no cause of action arose therein terms of Section 20 Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 11 (2) of the Act.

7.       Same issue arose before our State Commission in Ms. Sunita Sehgal and Mr. Varun Sehal Vs Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited in Complaint No. 1497/2016 and vide order dated 09.02.2017 it was held that:

‘’2. We have heard counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission.  The project is located at Gurgaon.  The copy of receipts show that payment was made by cheque drawn at SBI. The name of branch is conspicuously missing.  Counsel for the complainant did not want to disclose the name of the branch.  He did not agree to file copy of cheque book or pass book to ascertain in which branch the complainant has account.  So the plea that complainant did not retain copy of cheque appears to be an attempt to keep this Commission in dark.  Counsel for complainant stressed that regd. Office of OP is in Delhi and so this Commission has the jurisdiction.  He relied upon decision of High Court of Kerala in HCL Info Systems Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumar ILR 2007 (3) Kerala 40 to make out that defendant company is to be deemed to carry on business at New Delhi where it has its regd. Office. Firstly that is the decision regarding civil court in CPC and not in consumer court governed by consumer protection Act. Section 20 CPC contains an explanation that company shall be deemed to carry on its business at its sole and principal office in India.  There is no similar explanation in consumer protection Act.  Hence the cited judgement is not applicable to the case in hand.

3.        Similar question reached Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, IV (2009) CPJ 40. In the said judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it could not agree with counsel of the appellant. It was held that interpretation has to be given to amended section 17(2) (b) of the Act which does not lead to absurd consequence. If contention of counsel for appellant is accepted, it would mean that even if cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file complaint even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or any where in India where branch office of insurance company is situated.  That would lead to absurd consequence and lead to bench hunting.  The expression on branch office would mean branch office where cause of action has arisen.  No doubt said interpretation would be departing from plain and literal word of section 17 (2) (b) of the Act but such departure is sometime necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid  absurdity.

4.        If branch office in clause 17 (2)(b) has to read alongwith cause of action, the same interpretation should apply to section 17(1)(a) so  as to mean "OP voluntarily resides or carries on business..........." alongwith cause of action.’’

8.       Hence question of territorial jurisdiction is now settled by Apex Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (IV) 2009 CPJ 40. Wherein it was held that amended section 17 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act has to be interpreted in such a way which does not lead to absurd consequences and bench hunting.  

9.    Reference may also be made to decision of National Commission in Revision Petition No 1100/2011 titled as Rajan Kapoor Vs Estate Officer, Huda decided on 04.11.2011 wherein District Forum Panchkula allowed the complaint.   In appeal the State Commission found that District Forum, Panchkula had no territorial jurisdiction following Sonic Surgical (supra). Order of State Commission directing return of complaint for being presented to District Forum Ambala was maintained by the National Commission while observing that simply because Head Office of  HUDA was in Panchkula, Panchkula District Forum did not have jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen at Panchkula.

10.     Since no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, this Forum does not have territorial Jurisdiction to adjudicate this case.  The complaint be accordingly returned to the complainant for its presentation before Forum having jurisdiction within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 

Announced on this   ___^th Day of  _______ 2020.