Christian Medical College And Hospital vs KULDEEP SINGH

-THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 5. 8. 2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa whereby it has been held that the District Forum, Sirsa had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and for that reason the application filed by the petitioner-opposite parties was dismissed.

IN order to focus the controversy involved in the present revision petition few facts need to be noticed in the forefront. The case of the complainants as set out in the complaint is that Arshdeep the only son of the complainants had developed anemia. He was taken to Dr. Anjani Kumar Aggarwal of ''sanjivani Newborn and Children Hospital'' opposite main Post Office, Sirsa, where he was admitted. Blood transfusion was done. As the blood group of Arshdeep was O+, two units of blood were purchased from ''shiv Shakti Blood Bank'' at Sirsa on the advice of doctor and the same were administered to Arshdeep. He remained admitted in the said hospital upto 14. 9. 2004 and he recovered during this period. Again on 6. 12. 2004 Arshdeep developed same problem and for that reason he was taken to Dr. Rajender Singh of Rajendra Children Hospital, Sirsa. He was admitted on the same day and remained in the said hospital upto 11. 12. 2004. Tests were conducted during this period but the report was found to be in negative. There was no improvement in the condition of the son of the complainants and for that reason he was taken to ''christian Medical College and Hospital'' Ludhiana on 13. 12. 2004 where he was admitted. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 being the doctors of the said college of opposite party No. 1 treated the son of the complainants and tested the blood group. They reported that the blood group was AB+. The complainants were astonished to know about the above said blood group and requested the opposite party No. 2 and 3 to re-test the blood group of Arshdeep, but they did not take it seriously. Under the advice of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3, the complainants arranged for the blood group of AB+ which was administered to son of the complainants. The son of the complainants remained under treatment from 13. 12. 2004 to 22. 12. 2004. He was discharged on 22. 12. 2004. From there son of the complainants was taken to P. G. I. , Chandigarh where the blood group of the son of the complainants was tested and they reported that blood group was O+. The complainants accordingly informed that the doctors at Ludhiana had wrongly transfused the blood of wrong group to minor son of the complainants which had created problem and during the period from 22. 12. 2004 to 27. 12. 2004 he remained admitted, his condition was critical. Doctors advised that Arshdeep son of the complainants had developed blood infection due to transfusion of wrong blood group. The complainants took their child to their village Chormar on 27. 12. 2004 where he expired on 4. 1. 2005. Under these circumstances the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Sirsa seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10 lacs as compensation on account of death of their minor son Arshdeep; Rs. 1,20,000 for the expenses incurred on his treatment and Rs. 5,000 as cost of proceedings. On notice to the opposite parties they filed an application before the District Forum, Sirsa seeking dismissal of the complaint on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. It was stated therein that the son of the complainant was admitted in the ''christian Medical College and Hospital'' at Ludhiana where he remained as indoor patient upto 22. 12. 2004 and thereafter he was taken to P. G. I. , Chandigarh from 22. 12. 2004 to 27. 12. 2004. It was stated that from P. G. I. , Chandigarh they took their son to village Chormar where he died. Under these circumstances they pleaded that the District Forum, Sirsa had no jurisdiction and for that reason the complaint merited dismissal. The District Forum, Sirsa took up the view that the initial cause of action had arisen at Sirsa where he was taken to the hospital and the objection raised by the opposite parties in this regard was without any merits. Consequently, the application filed by the opposite parties was dismissed as per order dated 5. 8. 2005. It is against this order the present revision petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.

IT is manifest from the stand taken in the complaint that the complainants had attributed negligence with regard to the treatment given to their son at the hospital of the opposite parties under the supervision of the Doctors arrayed as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in the complaint. It is during this period that the blood group of the son of the complainants was given AB+ wrongly and five units of the blood of the said group were also administered to him during the period he remained admit thereafter from 13. 12. 2004 to 22. 12. 2004. It was on 22. 12. 2004 when,the son of the complainants was taken to P. G. I. , Chandigarh, the doctors had declared that as the blood group of the son of the complainants was O+, he had been given wrong treatment by the doctors at hospital of the opposite party No. 1. The infection to the son of the complainants developed was directly related to the transfusion of the blood group of AB+ group, administered under the advice of the opposite party No. 3. Therefore, the entire cause of action had arisen at Ludhiana where the hospital of the opposite party No. 1 is located and the opposite party No. 2 was the doctor incharge of the said hospital while treating the son of the complainants. The jurisdiction of the District Forum has to be determined in terms of the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986), which are on the similar lines of the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Learned Counsel representing the petitioners also referred to the cases Union Bank of India v. M/s. Seppo Rally Oy and Others, (1996-97) 786 NCC LC (SC) and Chander Kanta Bansal and Another v. K. L. M. Royal Dutch Airlines, New Delhi and Others, III (1992) CPJ 291=1994 (1) Con. LT 231, in this regard. When confronted with the above legal position, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainants did not dispute that the District Forum, Sirsa had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Consequently, the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained and while accepting the revision the same is set aside. Under the circumstances of the case it is held that the District Forum, Sirsa has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed with liberty to file the same in a competent Court of jurisdiction, if so advised. At the same time learned Counsel for the respondent-complainants prayed that as the complainants have been bona fidely pursuing the case at Sirsa, the time spent be allowed to be condoned. In view of the submissions made, the complainants shall be entitled to get the benefit of the period spent before the District Forum in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Ordered accordingly.