Sadhu Vaswani Mission vs Sanjay Kedia S/O M S Kedia

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 03 -09 -2008 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Complaint No. 02/07 Sadhu Vaswani Mission Vs. Shri Sanjay Kedia and Ors., by which application challenging jurisdiction was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the Complainants/Respondents No. 1 to 6 filed complaint before State Commission on account of negligence in treatment and prayed for compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs jointly and severally against all the opposite parties. Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 moved application before State Commission that State Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as O.P. No. 1 does not have branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of State Commission, hence complaint be dismissed. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed application against which this revision petition has been filed.

NONE appeared for Respondent No. 8 and he was proceeded ex -parte. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that medical negligence has been alleged only against O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 which do not have any branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of State Commission even then learned State Commission committed error in dismissing the application, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed against them. On the other hand learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 6 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law as compensation has also been claimed against O.P. No. 3 whose hospital is within territorial jurisdiction of State Commission, hence revision petition be dismissed.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards notice issued on behalf of the complainant by which compensation has been claimed from O.P. No. 2 and has also drawn my attention towards Para 31 of the complaint, in which it has been mentioned that state of health of the Complainant No. 1 is solely due to negligent treatment given by opposite party nos. 1 and 2. No doubt main allegations are against O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 who referred complainant to O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 but compensation has been claimed against all the opposite parties including opposite party no. 3, State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

APPARENTLY , O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 neither resides nor have branch office within territorial jurisdiction of State Commission but O.P. No. 3 Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital is within territorial jurisdiction of State Commission. Complainant specifically alleged in Para 29 of the complaint that O.P. No. 3 is also responsible because O.P. No. 3 referred Complainant No. 1 to O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and in the prayer clause of the complaint he has claimed compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs jointly and severally against all the opposite parties including opposite party no. 3 though main negligence has been imputed against O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. As complainant has claimed compensation against all the opposite parties including O.P. No. 3 whose hospital is within territorial jurisdiction of State Commission, learned State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaint against all the opposite parties irrespective of the fact that O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 neither resides nor have branch office within territorial jurisdiction of State Commission.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Indian Airlines Corporation and Ors. Vs. Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad and Anr., 1991 2 CPJ 686 in which it was observed that merely because one of the branch office of the opposite party is also within territorial jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, complaint cannot be instituted in that Consumer Fora but has to be instituted within territorial jurisdiction of the office from which complainant had dealings because all the records relating to transactions and witnesses would be available only there. This judgment does not help to the petitioner because O.P. No. 3 is situated within jurisdiction of State Commission. He has also placed reliance on judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Union Bank of India Vs. Seppo Rally Oy and Anr., 1999 8 SCC 357 ; Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr., 2004 6 SCC 254 and Alchemist Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors., 2007 11 SCC 335 in which cause of action has been defined and observed as under: - - "25. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to several decision of this Court and submitted that whether a particular fact constitutes a cause of action or not must be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. In our judgment, the testis whether a particular fact(s) is (are) of substance and can be said to be material, integral or essential part of the list between the parties. If it is, if forms a part of cause of action. If it is not, it does not form a part of cause of action. It is also well settled that in determining the question, the substance of the matter and not the form thereof has to be considered."

I agree with the law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court but these cases are not helpful to the petitioner as in the case in hand complainant has alleged deficiency on the part of O.P. No. 3 also and has claimed compensation from him along with other opposite parties.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.