When fraud, compulsion, and coercion are alleged, the Consumer Court will not entertain such complaints and will relegate the parties to resort to a Civil Court.

Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin, President— This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming compensation attributing medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

2. The allegations in the complaint is that the complainant is a young, energetic and educated gentleman residing at Tellicherry and working as salesman in Doha Quater in M/s. Falcon Super Market from 18.1.1983 and his total salary of Rs. 28.000/- per month inclusive of all perks. During the month of April, 1993, the complainant was suffering from abdominal pain and he consulted Dr. K.M. Ahammed of Kadavathur and on examination he was not able to form a definite opinion and as he suspected a case of Renal Caculas, he referred vide letter dated 25.4.1993 to the 3rd opposite party Dr. Roy Chally. The 3rd opposite party admitted the complainant in the National Hospital, Calicut, on 6.5.1993 at 15.20 hrs. It was run by the first and second opposite parties.

3. It was also alleged that he underwent an operation and after operation he was paralised. Thereafter he was sent to Sree Chithira Thirunnal Institute for Medical Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, and they opined that the entire disability was due to Myeloradiculpthy (post infections). He also stated that the above facts would show that there was total deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and he was also convinced that there would not be any improvement in the permanent disability caused to the complainant. It is also stated in paragraph 19 that he was discharged from the National Hospital after getting an agreement executed, agreeing to accept the offer made by the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- waiving the right of the complainant to proceed against the Ist opposite party to get adequate compensation. This was obtained by compulsion, fraud and coercion and as such the clause in the agreement is a nullity and has no sanctity. The agreement was also produced as Ext.P8.

4. In the version filed by the opposite parties there is specific contention taken that the remedy of the complainant is only to file civil suit since in the nature of this case, the Court has to examine and scrutinise innumerable documents and also examine witnesses from various places from Madras, Trivandrum, Calicut etc., and that can be done only by a Civil Court. It is also stated that the implications and validity of an agreement executed between the complainant and some of the opposite parties will have to be decided looking into the provisions of the Contract Act and other relevant enactments. On perusal of the agreement of Ext. P 8 it is seen that Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid to the complainant towards full and final settlement of his claim. The agreement states :

"The first party is discharged from the 2nd party's hospital on this day and the first party hereby once again reiterates that he has absolutely no complaints against the second party, National Hospital run by the 2nd party. Hospital authorities, Hospital staff. Hospital employees except against Dr. Roy Chally."

It is also stated in the agreement that the first opposite party shall have no right to initiate any legal proceedings against the 2nd party. National Hospital or the employees under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act or tortious liability under the General laws. It is clearly stated in Paragraph 1 of the agreement that the 2nd party agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the Ist party in full and final settlement of all claims of the Ist party against the 2nd party.

5. As indicated earlier, in paragraph 9 of the complaint it is stated the said agreement waiving the right of the complainant to proceed against Ist opposite party to get adequate compensation was obtained by compulsion, fraud and coercion and such clause in the agreement is a nullity and has no legal sanctity. The Supreme Court, National Commission and this Commission have repeatedly held that when fraud, c