APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :    11^th AUGUST 2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the interim order dated 21.04.2017, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 155/2012, vide which, the contention of the present appellants/opposite parties (OPs) in the said complaint that the Delhi State Commission had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter, was not accepted and the consumer complaint was admitted.

2.       The respondent/complainant, V.S. Tyagi, filed the consumer complaint in question, against the appellants/OPs, alleging medical negligence against them in the treatment of his wife, who was suffering from coronary disease and ultimately died on 25.12.2009.  The appellants/OPs are a hospital situated at Gurgaon, Haryana and OP-3, Dr. R.R. Kasliwal is working as a consultant at the said hospital.  It is stated in the memo of parties / memo of appeal that the hospital called Medanta and the Medicity have their corporate / registered office at E-18, Defence Colony, New Delhi.  As stated in the impugned order dated 21.04.2017, the appellants/OPs orally opposed the admission of the complaint by contending that the Delhi State Commission had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter, because no cause of action had arisen at Delhi.  The patient had been admitted/treated at the Hospital in Gurgaon and her death also took place at Gurgaon.  The State Commission, relying upon certain documents, concluded that part treatment was provided to the deceased at Delhi also by the OP-3 Dr. R.R. Kasliwal.  The State Commission admitted the complaint and directed the OPs to file their written statement within 30 days from the date of the order.  The appellants have challenged this order by way of the present appeal, saying that the State Commission had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in terms of section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

3.       The learned Senior Advocate for the appellants argued at length in support of their contention that under section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the State Commission had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.  It was true that the Corporate/Registered office of the hospital was situated in Delhi, but the complaint could be filed at Delhi only, if the hospital itself or its branch office was situated at Delhi.  The Learned Senior Advocate has drawn attention to an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sonic Surgical v/s National Insurance Company Limited” [2010 (1) SCC 135], saying that the consumer complaint could be filed only at the place, where the OP had branch office and where the cause of action had arisen.  The State Commission had made a wrong observation that part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, as part treatment was provided to the deceased at Delhi.  During arguments, the learned counsel has produced copies of certain prescriptions, saying that the patient had obtained consultation from Dr. R.R. Kasliwal, OP-3 at the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, Delhi.  The learned counsel argued that the said prescription had no bearing on the treatment taken by the deceased at the Medicity Hospital.  The learned counsel has further drawn attention to the orders passed by this Commission in “Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr. vs. Radhey Shyam & Anr.” [III (2015) CPJ 151 (NC)], and the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Smt. Uzma Khanam vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.” [99 (2002) Delhi Law times 661], in support of her arguments.  Attention was also invited to another case “Dr. A.H. Rizvi vs. Ku. Divya Mittal [III (2001) CPJ 223 (UP State Commission)]”.  The learned counsel pointed out that they had filed their written submissions also in this regard before the State Commission, seeking rejection of complaint/dropping of proceedings against them, and mentioned the case law as stated above before that Commission. 

4.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

5.       Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows:-

“17(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the 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)  ……………..

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

6.       A plain reading of the above section indicates that the consumer complaint can be instituted, interalia, in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the opposite party or each of the opposite parties actually and voluntarily resides, OR carries on business, OR has a branch office, OR personally works for gain.  The words “carries on business” do imply that the complaint could be instituted at a place from where the business of the opposite party is being handled, controlled or supervised in addition to the place where the OP had their branch office.  The existence of the Corporate/Registered office of the OP Hospital at Delhi is a fact admitted by the appellants.  It is clear, therefore, that the opposite party hospital is ‘carrying on its business’ from Delhi and the Consumer Complaint could be filed at Delhi as well.

7.       In so far as the location of the branch office of the OP is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in their order in “Sonic Surgical v/s National Insurance Company Limited” (supra), held that the consumer complaint could not be filed at all places, where the branch office of an opposite party was located.  It was held that the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action had arisen.  The judgment in the “Sonic Surgical v/s National Insurance Company Limited” (supra), however, does not debar a complainant to file a complaint at a place where the OPs are ‘carrying on their business’.  The expression ‘branch office’ has been listed alongwith the expression ‘carries on business’, and hence, the complaint could be filed at a place, from where the business of the OP was being monitored. 

8.       The copies of the prescriptions produced during arguments do indicate that the patient obtained consultation from the appellant-3/OP-3, Dr. R.R. Kasliwal at Apollo Hospital, Delhi as well.  The said Dr. R.R. Kasliwal may be providing his services at two different places, but the assertion made by the State Commission that part treatment was provided to the deceased at Delhi, cannot be stated to be incorrect.  It is made out, therefore, that part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi also. 

9.         From the foregoing discussion, it is held that the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error and the complaint has been rightly ordered to be admitted by the State Commission.  There is no merit in the present appeal, therefore, and the same is ordered to be dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.