PRAFULBHAI V.SHIROYA vs REKHABEN PRAKASHBHAI JOSHI

COMPLAINANT filed Consumer Complaint No. 159 of 2001 before the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot on following brief facts. COMPLAINANT was residing with her husband at Surat during which time she became pregnant. She was under treatment of opponent doctor at Surat. She delivered a baby girl in the nursing home of the opponent doctor on 8.1.2001. It has been alleged that on account of medical negligence in applying forceps, complainant''s baby girl sustained injury and ultimately she died on 9.1.2001. The complainant filed complaint before the learned Forum alleging that she came to know about such medical negligence on the part of the opponent doctor when she had been at her parental home at Rajkot. She, therefore, alleged that because she was posted with knowledge about said medical negligence on the part of the opponent doctor while at Rajkot, part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Forum at Rajkot. Opponent moved application before the learned Forum for hearing the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issue. Upon hearing the said issue as preliminary issue, the learned Forum came to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint as part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Forum at Rajkot. It, therefore, dismissed application Exh. 8 moved by the opponent doctor.

WE have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. In our considered opinion, the learned Forum clearly appears to have committed jurisdictional error in assuming jurisdiction which was apparently not vested in it by applying Clause (c) of Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Cause of action is always relatable to the party against whom cause is sought to be set up. Merely because the complainant or the suitor, as the case may be, comes to know about any default or any imperfection on the part of the other party, it cannot be said that, that becomes part of cause of action. In the present case every part of cause of action occurred at Surat. Merely, because the complainant came to know about the alleged default/imperfection on the part of the opponent doctor while she had been at her parental home at Rajkot it cannot be said that any part of cause of action against the opponent doctor has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Forum at Rajkot. In the view of the matter, the case before the learned Forum, on the face of it, did not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of that Forum. In that view of the matter, this Revision Application is required to be allowed as under. This Revision Application is granted. Impugned order dated 18.9.2002 passed by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot below application Exh. 8 in Complaint No. 159 of 2001 is hereby set aside. Application Exh. 8 moved by the opponent doctor is hereby granted. Complaint No. 159 of 2001 will stand dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of the learned District Forum. The learned Forum will return the complaint to the complainant for the same being presented before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Application allowed.