HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This Revision Petition  is at the instance of the revisionist/petitioner and this is directed   against the Order No. 5 dated 18.10.2019 passed by the  Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, Howrah, (in short, “the District Commission”) in connection with MA Case No. 71/2019 arising out of Complaint Case No. CC/113/2018 whereby the   Ld. District Commission  was pleased to reject the maintainability application filed by the Revisionist/Petitioner.
2.  The Respondent No. 1 being complainant filed a petition of complaint before the  Ld. District Commission being No. CC/113/2018 praying for following reliefs:

i). An order and direction may kindly be passed upon the  Opposite Parties for  pay the sum of  Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs) only to the complainant towards compensation for their medical negligence, deficiency in medical service, failure to diagnose, performance of operations on repeated occasion without any successful result and correct diagnosis and also for causing mental pain, agony, tension, harassment, anxiety, monetary loss for his treatment.

ii). To pass direction upon the Opposite parties  to pay cost of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-  (Rupess one lakh) only.

iii). For such other relief or relieves, to which the complainant would be found entitled.

AND

For this act of your kindness the complainant as in duty bound shall ever pray.

3. The revisionist entered appearance in this case and filed an application challenging the maintainability of the complaint case.
4. The Ld. District Commission was pleased to reject the said maintainability application on contest by the order impugned.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the revisionist/petitioner has preferred this Revisional Application.
6. Heard the   Ld. Advocate appearing for the revisionist/petitioner and carefully perused the record, memo  of   revision petition and other documents.
7. Having heard  the Ld. Advocate  appearing  for the revisionist/petitioner and Respondent No. 1 and on careful perusal of the record, it appears to me that the revisionist/petitioner filed an application challenging the maintainability of the case on the ground that –

1. the petition  of complaint is  not maintainable before this Commission, and value of the case exceeds  pecuniary jurisdiction of this  Commission.
2. that the petition of complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and
3. that the consumer complaint is barred by law.

8. Section 11 Sub-Section (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that -

“subject to other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints wherethe value of thegoods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh) only”.

Therefore, it is clear that total value of goods or services as  well as of compensation would determine the pecuniary limit of  jurisdiction of  Consumer Fora. In the instant case, on careful perusal of the petition of complaint filed by the Respondent No. 1, it transpires that the complainant has prayed for direction upon the   opposite parties for pay a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakh) only  to the complainant towards compensation for their medical negligence, deficiency in medical negligence, failure to diagnose, performance  of operation on repeated occasion without  any successful result and correct diagnose and also for causing mental pain, agony, tension, harassment, anxiety etc. It also appears to me that the complainant has also prayed for direction upon the opposite parties to pay litigation cost to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only. On consideration of the same I think that the complainant/Respondent No. 1 has prayed for a compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakh) only which includes the monetary loss  for his treatment. Moreover, it appears to me that the complainant/Respondent No. 1 has made no allegation of medical negligence against the Apollo Hospital, Chennai as well as Tata Medical Centre, Mumbai. Moreover, I find that, the complainant has stated in the petition of complaint clearly and categorically that medical negligence happened on 08.09.2015 and thereafter, complainant was under treatment of various doctors and in various  hospitals till 03.02.2018. So, there is a continuous cause of action on and from 08.09.2015 to till his last  treatment of 03.02.2018.

9. Under these facts and circumstances, I  am of the view that Ld. District Commission has rightly held that the District Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case and the Apollo Hospital, Chennai as well as Tata Medical Centre, Mumbai are not necessary  party in this case and the complaint case is not barred  by limitation.
10. In the result, I hold that there is no incorrectness, illegality and impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission.
11. In view of the matter, I hold that the order of the Ld. District Commission should not be disturbed. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere  with the impugned order. So, the  revision petition is without any  merit. It is, therefore, dismissed.  
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
13. The Ld. District Commission is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible without  granting any  unnecessary adjournment  to either of the parties.
14. Both parties are directed to appear before the  Ld. District Commission on 03.08.2024 for receiving  further direction.
15. Let a copy of this order  be sent to the Ld. District Commission at once.
16. Office to comply.