AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents have tendered their vakalatnama which are taken on record.
This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission West Bengal dated 04.04.2017
Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that Ms. Nandita Datta, wife of the petitioner was covered under medical insurance policy purchased by complainant for the period w.e.f. 12.06.2015 to 11.06.2016. Ms. Nandita Datta was admitted in Dum Dum Municipal Specialized Hospital with the complaint of abdominal pain and she was treated as in-patient for the period 10.10.2015 to 18.10.2015. The cost of reimbursable expenses under the policy was allegedly Rs.24079/- . The insurance claim submitted by the petitioner complainant was not settled. Being aggrieved, the petitioner complainant filed consumer complaint No. 95 of 2016 before District Consumer Forum Unit I Kolkata. 3. Ms. Nandita Datta, wife of the petitioner also filed consumer case no. 216 of 2016 before District Consumer Forum North 24 Parganas at Barasat alleging medical negligence in her treatment on the part of respondent Dum Dum Municipal Specialized Hospital as also its Dr. Samit Chatterjee.
As both the consumer complaints referred to above have arisen out of same treatment of Ms. Nandita Datta. Respondent no.3 filed transfer application no.TA 68/2016 requesting for the transfer of consumer complaint filed by the petitioner so that both the complaints could be heard by the same consumer Fora. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 04.04.2017 allowed the transfer application and directed that consumer complaint no. 216 of 2016 filed by Smt. Nandita Datta be transferred to District Forum Unit I Kolkata from North 24 Parganas at Barasat.
The petitioner being aggrieved of the transfer of the complaint filed by his wife to District Forum Unit I Kolkata has filed the revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission has been passed in utter disregard of mandate of Section 17-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further contended that impugned order is not sustainable because it has been passed in absence of the petitioner without impleading him as a party to the transfer application.
Respective counsel for the opposite parties on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that consumer case no. 95/2016 filed by the petitioner before District Forum Kolkata Unit I as also consumer case no. 216 of 2016 filed by wife of the petitioner Nandita Datta before District Forum at Barasat have arisen out of the treatment of Nandita Datta at respondent no.1 hospital during the period 10.10.2015 to 18.10.2015. Therefore, it would be appropriate that both the cases are heard together by one consumer forum.
In order to appreciate the legal contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on Section 17-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) which deals with Transfer of Cases. Section 17A is reproduced as under: "[ 17-A Transfer of cases.- On the application of the complainant or of its own motion, the State Commission may , at any stage of the proceeding transfer any complaint pending before the District Forum to another District Forum within the State if the interest of justice so requires.] "
On bare reading of the above, it is clear that State Commission has jurisdiction to transfer any complaint pending before one District Forum to another if the interest of justice so requires. The State Commission in the instant case has allowed the transfer petitioner keeping in mind that both the consumer cases filed by the petitioner and his wife have arisen out of the same treatment. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order because it would be appropriate if both the cases are heard by one and same District Forum. Secondly, it is contended that State Commission has committed an error in failing to appreciate that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the Transfer Application. We do not find merit in the contention for the reason that it is not a complaint case filed by the complainant but the complaint case filed by his wife Nandita Datta has been transferred. If at all anyone who could have grievance against the impugned order it was Ms. Nandita Datta whose case has been transferred from Barasat to Kolkata, Unit I North. Otherwise also, the petitioner is resident of Kolkata. Therefore, in our considered view, no inconvenience would be caused to him if the transfer application is allowed and heard at Kolkata Unit I North.
In view of the discussion above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.