IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction under Article 227 is determined by the location of the cause of action, not merely by where a judgment was issued.

ORDER :

1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent no.1, who appears on caveat.

2. Delay condoned.

3. Leave granted.

4. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 04th October, 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi on petitions (CMM Nos.1609/2023 & 1614/2023) filed by the respondent no.1 herein under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the common judgment and order dated 26th August, 2022, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (For short the ‘NCDRC’), New Delhi, in two revision petitions (R.P. No.629/2020 (Filed by the appellants herein) & R.P. .645/2020 (Filed by respondent no.2 herein)); one filed by the appellants herein and the other filed by the respondent no.2 herein.

5. The grievance of the appellants is that the High Court of Delhi ought not to have entertained the petition filed by the respondent No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as it cannot be treated as a jurisdictional High Court in the instant case as has been referred to in M/s. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. (AIR 2023 SC 3699). He submits that the entire cause of action in the instant case has arisen in Kolkata. The respondent no.1 had filed a complaint (Complaint Case No.CC/144/2016) against the appellants and the respondent no.2 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, (Unit-I) at Kolkata, which was rejected vide order dated 13th October, 2017. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.1 had filed an appeal (First Appeal No.A/1313/2017) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (For short the ‘SCDRC’), West Bengal, at Kolkata, which was allowed vide order dated 13th February, 2020. Dissatisfied by the said order, the appellants herein and the respondent no.2-Hospital filed review petitions before the NCDRC, that were allowed.

6. Initially, the respondent no.1 had filed petitions for special leave to appeal (SLP (Civil) Nos.18709-18710 of 2022) before this Court challenging the order dated 26th August, 2022, passed by the SCDRC. However, in view of the judgment of this Court in Universal Sompo (supra) liberty was granted to him to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

7. Treating the High Court of Delhi as the jurisdictional High Court, the respondent no.1 has filed petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Notice was issued on the said petitions on 04th October, 2023, on the adjudication of jurisdictional aspect. This is what has brought the appellants before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 contends that the jurisdictional High Court in the instant case ought to be treated as the High Court of Delhi, inasmuch as the judgment impugned before the High Court was passed by the NCDRC at Delhi.

9. In our opinion, that can hardly be treated as a ground to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. The respondent No.1 ought to have approached the High Court of Calcutta being aggrieved by the impugned judgment as the entire cause of action in the present case has arisen in Kolkata, where the patient was operated for ovarian cancer on 24th February, 2012, and expired on 30th July, 2014. The complaint case was filed at Kolkata based on the aforesaid cause of action. Merely, because the NCDRC has allowed the revision petitions filed by the appellants and the respondent no.2 would not be a ground to vest jurisdiction in the High Court of Delhi.

10. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The petitions filed before the High Court of Delhi are disposed of with liberty granted to the respondent no.1 to approach the High Court of Calcutta for seeking appropriate relief. In the event the respondent no.1 files a petition before the High Court of Calcutta within four weeks from today, the appellant herein shall not raise any objection as to the maintainability of the said petition on the ground of limit