ORDER 03      Date-13.09.2021

The instant complaint is taken up for admission hearing. Heard the Learned Advocate for the complainant. Perused the consumer complaint coupled with its annexure thereto.

              The brief facts as narrated by the complainant in the complaint are that he had been to the OP-1  M/s. Lal Path Labs for Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV) test to know whether he is infected with H.IV./ A.ID.S disease. Blood sample was collected against payment and report dated 31.05.2019 was given which shows HSV virus. On 12.01.2021, complainant again test of HSV to OP-2 Quadra Medical Services Pvt. Ltd.  and their report dated 15.11.2021 was normal. Hence, the complainant who is a resident of 11/3, Picnic Garden Road, PS- Tiljala, Kolkata-700039 filed the instant consumer complaint  to this commission.

On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, it is argued by the Learned Advocate for

the complainant that the Proforma  OP-2 has its office at 53, Hazra Road, PS  Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019 falling under the Jurisdiction of this commission. Consumer complaint shows that the dispute regarding genuineness of the reported dated 31.05.2019 issued by the OP-1 Dr. Lal Path Labs of 11/3, Picnic Garden Road, kolkata-700039, PS-Tiljala. The complainant has failed to satisfy that the alleged cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of this commission. Moreover, alleged report dated 31.05.2019 issued in the name of the complainant by OP-1 whose labs situated within kasba PS. In other words, neither the OP-1 carry on business nor the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this commission.  Complainant never disputed with regard to the genuineness of the report dated 15.01.2021 issued by Proforma OP-2 who is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this commission.

            In the present case since the cause of action arose at 102/1, Rajdanga school

Road, PS-Kasba, Kolkata-700107 and also at 11/3, Picnic Garden Road.  

Complainant is an inhabitant under Tiljala PS and the DCDRC, Kolkata Unit –IV alone

will have jurisdiction to entertain the  complaint.          

On the issue of Territorial Jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.  reported in AIR 2010 SCW 298. Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 deals with the Territorial

Jurisdiction of the District Commission. The provision reads as under:-

             Jurisdiction of District Commission. 

34 (1) Subject to the other provisions  of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or  services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:

Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

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

1. the OP or each of the OPs, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has  a branch office or personally works for gain; or
2. any of the OPs, 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 or the District Commission is given, or
3. the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises or
4. the complainant resides or personally  works for gain.

            From the bare reading  of this provision, it is apparent that the complaint can

be instituted only where all the OPs  are actually and voluntarily residing or carrying

on  business or has a Branch Office and works for gain and also where the

complainant  resides or personally works for gain.   From the cause title of the

complaint it is apparent that the OP-1 is not carrying on business within the

jurisdiction of this commission. Complainant and OP-1 are inhabitant and also

carrying on business outside the jurisdiction of this commission. The provision of

section  34 (2) (b) & (d)  deals with eventuality relating to the institution of the

complaint where all  the OPs are not placed at one place. In such case, the complaint

can be filed with the permission of the commission at the place where either of the

OPs are residing or carrying on its business. In the present case, there is no relation

between the OP- 1 and OP-2. OP-2 is a separate Medical Centre. OP-1 who has no

branch office within the jurisdiction of this commission.  Accordingly, we refused to

grant permission to file the instant complaint to this commission and complaint should

be filed at a place where the cause of action has arisen. Moreover, the complaint

never claim any relief against the OP-2. Thus, Miscellaneous Application being

No.349/2021 is disposed of. 

We are guided by the Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.  reported in AIR 2010 SCW 298. The complaint is therefore, directed to be returned to the complainant along with all annexure against acknowledgement. A copy of the complaint also be retained for records. Complaint is accordingly, disposed of in above terms. The copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of cost by post. Order be also uploaded on  www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.