Delhi

StateCommission

CC/11/349

ANITA GUPTA & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NORTH DELHI NURSING HOME PVT. LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jul 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Hearing:29.07.2019

                                                                                                              

                                                                   Date of decision:05.08.2019

 

 

Complaint No. 349/2011

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1. Mrs. Anita Gupta

(Aged 47 years)

W/o Late Mr. Rajesh Gupta,

R/o AA-148, Shalimar Bagh,

New Delhi-110088

 

2. Miss Anushi Gupta

(Aged 24years)

D/o Late Mr. Rajesh Gupta

R/o AA-148, Shalimar Bagh,

New Delhi-110088

 

3. Miss Paridhi Gupta

(Aged 21 years)

D/o Late Mr. Rajesh Gupta

R/o AA-148, Shalimar Bagh,

New Delhi-110088

 

4. Master Mehar Gupta

(Aged 10 years)(Minor)

S/o Late Mr. Rajesh Gupta

Through his Mother and Legal Guardian

Mrs. Anita Gupta

W/o Late Mr. Rajesh Gupta,

R/o AA-148, Shalimar Bagh,

New Delhi-110088

 

5. Mrs. Darshana (also known as Mrs. Sudarshana Rani Aarwal)

(Aged 75 years)

W/o Late Mr. Harbans Lal Aggarwal

M/o Late Mr. Rajesh Gupta,

R/o AA-148, Shalimar Bagh,

New Delhi-110088….Complainants

 

VERSUS

 

1. North Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd.,

3, Community Centre-II, Phase-II

Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052

 

2. Jaipur Golden Hospital

(Unit of Jaipur Golden Charitable

Clinical Laboratory Trust)

2, Institutional Area, Sector-III,

Rohini, New Delhi-110085

 

3. Dr. S.P. Gupta

C/o North Delhi Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd.,

3, Community Centre-II, Phase-II

Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052

 

4. Dr. Ashish Gupta

C/o North Delhi Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd.,

3, Community Centre-II, Phase-II

Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052

 

5. Dr. S. Basu

C/o Jaipur Golden Charitable

Clinical Laboratory Trust)

2, Institutional Area, Sector-III,

Rohini, New Delhi-110085

 

6. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Registered Office

Level-5, Tower-II, Jeevan Bharti Building,

Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001

 

7. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Registered Office

8.  

Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place,

110001.  

 

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER                            

                                 

 1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?            Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                   Yes

 

Present:       Sh. Sandeep Bajaj and Ms. Akansha, Counsel for the complainant

                   Sh. Saurabh Jain, Counsel for the OP-1-3

                   Sh. Sameer Nandwani, Counsel for the OP-2 and 5

                   Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Sh. Ashok Kumar and Sh. M.K. Sinha, Counsel for the OP-4

                   Sh. V.K. Anand, Counsel for the OP-6

                   Sh. Harsh Kumar, Counsel for the OP-7

 

ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

1.           Negligence on the part of the treating doctor and the Hospital leading to the end of the patient has been alleged in this complaint filed before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Act, by Smt. Anita Gupta, and others, resident of New Delhi, for short complainant against North Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi and the doctors in those two hospitals, hereinafter referred to as OPs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and United Insurance Company Ltd. have also been impleaded in OPs in this complaint.
2.           Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.
3.           Sh. Rajesh Gupta, since deceased, complained of abdominal pain on 07.09.2009 and therefore was taken to the OP-1 Hospital for treatment where the patient having been diagnosed with the problem of Left Inguinal Hernia was admitted intimating that a minor surgery is required to be done for which Dr. S.P. Gupta and Dr. Ashish Gupta in their Hospital, impleaded as OP-3 and OP-4 respectively, are experts to conduct. However finally the condition of the patient could not improve leading to his end. In these circumstances the complaint has been filed before this Commission for the redressal of the grievances, praying for the relief as under:-

 

1. Direct the OP-1 to 5 to compensate the complainants to the tune of Rs. 96,96,248/- as under:-

 

1. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,96,248/- for the charges paid by the complainants to OP-1 and 2 and amounts paid to other parties on the instructions of OP-1 and 2.
2. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,00,000/- for the death of Mr. Rajesh Gupta and consequent loss of estate and future earnings, due to the negligence and carelessness of OP-1 to 5.
3. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the loss of care, love and affection of Mr. Rajesh Gupta to the complainants due to the negligence and carelessness of Op-1 to 5.
4. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the mental pain and agony and harassment caused to the complainants.

 

2. Direct the Op-1 to 5 to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the said amounts from the date of death of Mr. Rajesh Gupta i.e. 30.10.2009 to the complainants;
3. Direct that the cost of litigation may also be awarded suitably; and
4. Pass any other orders/ direction as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

4.           OPs were noticed and in response thereto each of the OPs had filed reply resisting the complaint both on merit and on technical ground.
5.           This complaint was listed before this Commission for final hearing on 29.07.2019 when counsel from both sides appeared and advanced their arguments, complainants for the compensation as prayed for and the OPs for dismissal of the complaint.
6.           However while dictating the order I noticed that the compensation claimed is of Rs. 96,96,248/- and the interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 30.10.2009 on the said amount, the determinant for computing pecuniary jurisdiction of a forum, which amount exceeds Rs. One Crore, which means and to put it differently, relying on the provisions of Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, which mandates the State Commission to entertain the complaint where the value of services and the compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs. 20 lakhs but does not exceed Rs. One Crore, this Commission does not enjoy the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of the complaint. This point though an important component for adjudication, was raised by neither parties.
7.           The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Amrish Kumar Shukla versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. as reported in I [2007] CPJ 1 (NC) is pleased to hold as under:-

 

In a complaint instituted under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by all the consumer on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such consumers.

 

8.           Having regard to these facts and the legal position explained the complaint is ordered to be returned to file it before the forum enjoying the jurisdiction therefor.
9.           Ordered accordingly.
10. A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. Files be consigned to record.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)

                                                                                       Member