Delhi

New Delhi

CC/51/2022

Gudda Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Director, GTB Hospital & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Apr 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION­­­-VI,

DISTT.NEW DELHI, M-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

CC. NO.51/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

GUDDU KUMAR

R/O HANUMAN MANDIR COMPLEX,

BABA KHARAK SINGH MARG,

NEW DELHI-1100                                         … COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. GTB HOSPITAL

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,

DILSHAD GARDEN, EAST,

Delhi-110095

 

2.DEPARTMENT OF ORTHOPEDICS,

THROUGH HEAD OF DEPARTMENT,

GTB HOSPITAL,

DILSHAD GARDEN, EAST,

Delhi-10095     

                                                                                                                                                       … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

CORAM : SH. POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

               SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

              MS. ADARSH NAIN, MEMBER   

                                                                                                                              Date of Institution: 02.03.2022

                                                                                                                                   Date of Order    : 08.04.2022

BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

ORDER

Hearing Through Video Conferencing.

Present: Complainant in person.

1. Vide this order we proceed to disposed off the legal question arisen whether this Commission does not has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint, as no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Commission? The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant was admitted in the OP`s hospital on 29.07.2018 as the complainant met with a fateful accident on the railway track at outer of the Ghaziabad Railway station. It was alleged that he was subjected to certain tests by the OP`s, doctors done plastic surgery was done and a rod was  fixed in the right side foot sole. It was further alleged that he was not given proper treatment and the OP`s were negligent in treating the patient, due to negligent approach the complainant contracted with infection with live maggots and the situation of the complainant become pathetic. The OP`s suggested to amputate the right leg of the complainant. It was further alleged that the complainant after discharged on 01.07.2018, visited Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi on 09.08.2018, but only given first aid and dressing. It was further alleged that later on the complainant was finally admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, and underwent the surgery but could not save the four fingers except the toe the right side leg. It was alleged that due to negligent act caused by the OP`s, complainant had suffered mental agony, pain to the rash and medical negligent, alleging deficiency in service, By way of present complaint, ccomplainant seeks directions to OP`s to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment alongwith cost of litigation Rs.55,000/-.
2. We have gone through the material on record and heard the counsel for complainant for the purpose of admission. At the very outset, it may mentioned that the complaint which has been filed on 02.03.2022 is time barred by time, the complainant filed an application for condonation of Delay with complaint on the ground that the limitation period was relaxed due to pandemic.
3. First of all, the jurisdiction of this Commission has been called into question.  As territorial jurisdiction is also under cloud. The complainant  mentioned his address as Hanuman Mandir Complex, baba Kharak Singh Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi, and did not filed any documents in respect of his residence, However, the complainant mentioned his address in patient discharge summary of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095  (Date of admission 29.07.2018) as East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, India and patient discharge summary of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 dated 01.08.2018 as Nand Nagri, also alleging medical negligence against  Hospital I.e. Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 which does not pertain to territorial jurisdiction of this Commission-VI. Merely, because mentioning the address of complainant in Connaught Place, New Delhi does not give Consumer Commission-VI, District: New Delhi jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Complainant has neither placed any documents on record to show that he is resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, nor filed any documents, to show that cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Commission. There is not an iota of evidence to show that cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission in the present case. The complainant has suppressed the fact that on which address he is resided.
4. On the point of Territorial Jurisdiction, Section 34 (2) of the CP Act,2019 (in short the Act) relates to the jurisdiction of District Commission. Section 34 (2) of the CP Act -2019 which is relevant is as under: -

“(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, —

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or (d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.”

5.      In this regard it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 575/18, titled Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn decided on 01.03.2018, as under:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis. Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

It is well settled that District Consumer Fora/Commission is bound by the orders pronounced by the Appellant Commission. It cannot take a contrary view from that of the Hon`ble State Commission/Hon`ble National Commission.

6.      We are thus of the view that this Commission does not has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint, as no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

7.      The complaint is accordingly returned to the Complainant along with the documents for presenting it before the concerned District Commission in accordance with law. A copy of the complaint and document be placed on record for record purpose.

8.      The particulars of the complaint are as under:

1. Date of Presentation of complaint       :       02.03.2022
2. Date of return                         :       31.03.2022
3. Name of the Complainant          :       Sh. Guddu Kumar
4. Court fee paid                         :       Rs.900/-

Copy of the order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.

File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission on this 8^th  day  of April, 2022.

 

 

MS.POONAM CHAUDHRY

(PRESIDENT)

 

 

 

BARIQ AHMAD                                            MS. ADARSH NAIN          

      (MEMBER)                                                    (MEMBER)