None for the appellant. Adv.Dharkar for the Respondent. He files pursis that Respondent hospital has merged with or has been sold to Oncquest  Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. However, still the liability of the Onc quest Illuminating Cancer Diagnosis, when the complaint was filed, survives and, therefore, after hearing Adv.Dharkar, we are proceeding to dispose of this appeal. 

            We have perused the impugned order dated 30/10/2006 passed by the Additional District Forum, Nagpur in C.C.No.98/2006. The appellant had filed consumer complaint against Onc quest Illuminating Cancer Diagnosis and three others all Resident of C/o Dabur pharma Ltd. A-3, Factory Road, Adjecent to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi 29.

The case of the complainant before the Forum was that, he was having gall bladder stone which was under control due to medication and various blood tests undertaken in various laboratories revealed marked increase in platelet count. Dr.Bhave of Leelavati Hospital, Bandra advised complainant to undergo BCL-ABL blood test at Opponent No.1 hospital. Opponent No.2 pathologist of the Opponent No.1 hospital took specimen of peripheral blood of complainant at Mumbai and sent it to Opponent No.1 at Delhi for diagnosis. Complainant received the report under the head “BCL-ABL Translocation Assu (Qualitative) nested RTPCR and gel electrophoresis with result” and therein, ABC-ABL hybrid transcript was detected in the leukocytes of the peripheral blood, which means that complainant had Leukemia i.e.blood cancer.

On consultation, Dr.Mahajan referred the complainant to SRL Clinical Reference Laboratories, Andheri who, after fresh analysis of blood, gave negative report contrary to the earlier report given by Opponent No.1 laboratory.

            . Dr.Bhave of Leelavati Hospital, Bandra again referred complainant to Tata Memorial Hospital, Cancer Cytogenetic Laboratory who also negatived the possibility of leukemia.

            As per complainant, thus, there was medical negligence/criminal negligence on the part of . Opponents, who gave wrong report that complainant was having leukemia. Hence the Complainant sent notice to the Opponents and then filed consumer complaint District Forum, Nagpur and claimed compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- besides cost.

            Opponent No.1 filed reply and stated therein that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and that no cause of action arose at Nagpur and hence Nagpur Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It further contended that the report given by it was only a suggestive report and not a conclusive proof of complainant having leukemia and as such the complaint is baseless and is also barred by limitation. They, therefore pleaded that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

            After hearing arguments of rival counsels and perusal of record and affidavits, the forum held that admittedly, Opponent no.2 collected blood sample of the complainant at Mumbai on 26/6/05 and it was then forwarded to Opponent no.1 at New Delhi on 28/4/05. So, there is difference in dates mentioned by the complainant. The Forum below was, therefore, of the opinion that blood collection was done at Mumbai and Opponent no.1,3 & 4 carried out their business at Delhi and hence cause of action arose at Mumbai & Delhi and not at Nagpur and therefore, Under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, Nagpur forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. With this observation, the forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal came to be filed.

            On perusal of the said judgment and on hearing Adv.Dharkar, we are finding that the complaint should have been filed primarily at Delhi where blood sample of the complainant was sent from Mumbai for analysis and where Opponent No.1,3 & 4 carried out blood test and had given incorrect finding according to complainant / appellant or at Mumbai where the blood sample was taken by Opponent No.2.  Hence we are finding that the order of the Forum is just and proper requiring no interference by this Commission.

Hence the order…

                                                            ORDER