Anushka Hospital  Near Harthala Police Chauki and Dainik Jagran Press Harthala Kant Road Muradabad through Director Rajeev Gupta .

Petitioner

V/s

1. Rizwan Ali age about 38 years S/o Shahadat Hussain present address: Village Talaspur Kondla Mathura Bye pass Road, Aligarh.
2. Bharat Hospital Chakarpur Road, Bazpur District Udhamsingh Nagar (Uttrakhand) through: Dr. Sartaz Alam Surgeon. 

Opposite Parties

Coram:

Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Alok Upadhyay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

Prounounced by Shri Hasnain Qureshi,  President

Date-

Judgment

This Review Petition has arisen out of order dated 05.08.2024 passed by this District Commission in complaint case no.29/2024 titled as Anushka Hospital Near Harthala Police Chauki and Dainik Jagran Press Harthala Kant Road Muradabad through Director Rajeev Gupta.(Petitioner) V/s Rizwan Ali age about 38 years S/o Shahadat Hussain present address: Village Talaspur Kondla Mathura Bye pass Road, Aligarh and Bharat Hospital Chakarpur Road, Bazpur District Udhamsingh Nagar (Uttrakhand) through: Dr. Sartaz Alam Surgeon. (Opposite Parties)

1. The complainant in the complaint case had sought the reliefs for issuing direction to the opposite parties to reimburse jointly and severally the complainant the amount Rs.1,60,000/-and also to reimburse jointly and severally the complainant the amount Rs.4500000/- Ops were further directed to reimburse jointly and severally the complainant the amount Rs.5,00000/- as compensation for mental agony and depression and also to reimburse jointly and severally  the complainant the amount Rs.25000/-for litigation expenses.  
2. The ops were directed by the impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2024 to reimburse jointly and severally  the complainant and amount Rs.160000/- incurred by him in treatment and Rs.45 Lac for compensation for loss of income, Rs.1 Lac for compensation for mental agony and depression and Rs.25000/-for litigation expenses.
3. Applicant Anushka Hospital preferred this Review Petitioner U/s-40 of the Act-2019 mainly on the grounds that the commission had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant is the resident of the District Rampur (UP). Complainant had also no cause of action against the applicant.
4.  Complainant approached the applicant on 09.05.2023 and he had under gone endoscopic retrograde collengiogram pancreatograpys (ERCP) and he was found to have CBD stones and all visible stone were removed and thereafter normal post clearance collengiogram was obtained and stent was placed in the CBD and there was no complication related to ERCP.  
5. Applicant has further stated that when the complainant came to him on 17.06.2023 for stent removal but it was revealed and ultrasound that it was no stent in the abdomen and on the insistence on the complainant of the op did lateral viewing endoscopy  and checked on Carm X-ray which confirmed absence of stent in abdomen and in all probability the stent had migrated and passed out through intestine silently  without causing any problem. Complainant was told the same and report was handed over to home. The migration of stents is not raire complainant did not develop any complication related to ERCP or migration of stent in this case negligence of the op does not arise.
6. No case of medical and negligence is made out again the op and the complainant has to prove certain aliments to establish medical negligence in view of judicial pronouncements.
7. The Op has purchased the professional indemnity policy from New India Insurance Company Ltd and complainant has failed to implead the insurance company.
8. There is no expert opinion to so deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Op.
9. We have heart the parties and perused the material on record.
10. It is evident from the grounds stated by the applicant for reviewing the impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2024 that the impugned judgment and order have been assailed on merits whereas the scope of review U/s-40 of the Act-2019 is confined only to error apparent on the face of the record. Applicant has not brought to notice any error apparent on the face of the record and thus the review sought by the applicant is beyond the scope of section-40 of the Act-2019 and is not sustainable in eye of law. So far the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, complainant has stated the place of his residence within the District Aligarh and in view of section-34(2)(d) of the Act-2019 a complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the complainant  resides or  personally works for game. Thus the District Commission Aligarh is competent to hear and decide the present complaint under review.  
11. In view of discussion made above, review petition is hereby dismissed.
12. Register as Misc. Case and consigned to record.