RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Revision No.56 of 2015

Appollo Clinic, Hanuman Mandir Road, 142 (A),

Betia Hatta, Sahar, Gorakhpur Janpad, Gorakhpur

through its Prabandhak.                                .. Revisionists.

Versus

Smt. Rupa Jaiswal w/o Suraj Jaiswal, R/o Purani

Nawtanwa, Wa. No.23, Lohia Nagar, Kasba, Nawtanwa,

Janpad, Maharajganj.                                  …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.                        

Shri A.K. Srivastava for the revisionsit.

Shri U.K. Srivastava for the respondent.

Date 12.4.2018s

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This revision has been filed by the revisionist Appollo Clinic against the order dated  16.4.2015, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Maharajganj in complaint case no.173 of 2014.

The facts leading to this revision, in short, are that the respondent/complainant has filed a complaint case in the District Forum below at Maharajganj on the ground that with regard to her first time delivery matter she contacted Dr. Sushma Gupta on 10.3.2014 who sent her to Appollo Clinic of the revisionist/OP for ultra-sonography. In the Appollo Clinic, the report was given on 11.3.2014 suspecting mis-carriage. From the treatment provided by Dr. Sushma Gupta, the complainant's problem increased and she was advised to consult Dr. Asmita Jaiswal who told that the foetus was growing not in the uterus but in

(2)

the fallopian tube. When the fallopian tube was on the verge of bursting, Dr. Asmita Jaiswal conducted an operation and took the dead foetus out and charged Rs.25,000.00 for the same. From such wrong treatment provided by Dr. Sushma Gupta and the complainant's possibility of becoming mother ever after nearly finished hence,  complaints were filed against Dr. Sushma Gupta as complaint case no.172 of 2014 and against the Appollo Clinic as case no.173 of 2014. Subsequently, the complainant got her complaint amended as she had also shown herself treated by Dr. Yashoda Kotcher in Sonauli Town in District Maharajganj on 3.4.2017 who had told the complainant that the foetus was developing in the fallopian tube which could be fatal. The OPs had taken the ground of the case being filed beyond the jurisdiction of the Forum below and after hearing the parties, the Forum below passed the impugned order on 16.4.2015 concluding that a part of cause of action also arose in the district Maharajganj and therefore, the Forum at Maharajganj had had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and rejected the application of the appellant/OP.       

          Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that this revision has been filed on the ground that the revisionist/ OP did not have any office or branch in district Maharajganj and therefore, District Forum at Maharajganj did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the revision allowed.

   Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

(3)

          In this case, the respondent/complainant had filed the case against Dr. Sushma Gupta as also against the revisionist/OP for committing negligence in treating the complainant. It is argued by the ld. counsel for the revisionist that the ld. Forum has illegally passed the impugned order concluding that the Forum below had had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter whereas there is no clinic or its branch of the appellant/OP in District Maharajganj and therefore, there was no occasion for the Forum below to entertain the complaint in the Forum below at Maharajganj. On the contrary, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the respondent/complainant that the complainant was treated also in Sonauli town with the jurisdiction of district Maharajganj on 3.4.2014 as she was examined by Dr. Yashoda Kotchar who had opined that the foetus was developing in fallopian tube which could be fatal and therefore, the part of cause of action arose to the complainant within the jurisdiction of district Maharajganj when Dr. Yashoda Kotchar had told the complainant about the serious problem, the complainant was facing with regard to her foetus. It is recorded by the ld. Forum below that the complainant has also provided the prescription and copies of the investigation done by Dr. Kotchar of Sonauli, Maharajganj, so obviously the cause of action i.e. knowledge about the problem being faced by the complainant subsequent to the treatment provided by Dr. Sushma Gupta and by the appellant/OP did arise with District Maharajganj. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act provides for the jurisdiction of the District Forum and as per section 11(2) which provides as under:-

(4)

          "11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum-

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed [does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs].

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

          (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, 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, or

          (b) any of the opposite parties, 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 either the permission of the District Forum is given, of the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

          (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

          So in the instant case, the cause of action in part has accrued within the jurisdiction of district Maharajganj and therefore, the ld. Forum has rightly concluded that the District Forum at Maharajganj had had the jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. Therefore, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Forum below hence, no interference is required in that. The revision deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.      

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                   (Vijai Varma)              (Raj Kamal Gupta)

               Presiding Member                    Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.4