No. 5/27.04.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Heard Mr. Basu, the Ld. Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.  None appears for the O.P.  The contention of the Petitioner as argued by Mr. Basu is that jurisdiction of a Forum is decided where cause of action arises and in this case entire cause of action on the basis of the pleadings is to be activities within Apollo Gleneagles Hospital which is located within Police Station Phoolbagan and accordingly within the jursicttion of the C.D.R.F. South 24 Pgs and the proceeding has been initiated before the C.D.R.F. North 24 Pgs.  The contention of the Respondent is that the deficiency in service of the Revision Petitioner has been detected only in O.P. No. 2 where tests had been done and, therefore, part of the cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of C.D.R.F. North 24 Pgs the proceeding is maintainable there.  On behalf of the Revisionist law has been cited as decided in the case of Dr. Mohd. Ayub – vs. – Smt. Mehfuzun Nisa reported in 2009 CTJ 53 (CP) (NCDRC) decided by the Hon’ble National Commission.  In the said case the surgery of the Complainant was carried out in Gorakhpur and when Complainant came back to Varanasi, she felt discomfort and according to her Doctor in Varanasi her earlier surgery was not in order.  In such facts it was held as follows :

“12.   Having gone through this material, I am satisfied that ‘cause of action’, which is a bundle of facts, does not lead me to think that any cause of action arose in Varanasi.  It cannot be the case of the complainant, that just because she resides in Varanasi, if any subsequent event, allegedly relatable to an earlier event, would confer territorial jurisdiction to a Forum, where neither the OP / Petitioner resides, or has a branch office or did any thing to the complainant in Varanasi”.

In the present case also even according to the contention of the Respondent who was the Complainant before the Forum below the incident which occurred at Respondent No. 2 does not amount to any deficiency in service as regards present Revisionist.  The knowledge of the Complainant as regards the alleged deficiency in service doe s not appear to be a part of the cause of action in the present proceeding.  Therefore, we allow the present revision and set aside the impugned order and we hold that the proceeding is not maintainable before the C.D.R.F., North 24 Pgs and the complaint is accordingly dismissed also.  We make it clear that on the self same cause of action the Complainant is entitled to initiate the proceeding in the appropriate Forum in accordance with law.