B. K. Taimni, Member—The petitioner was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the petitioner.

2. Basic facts are not in dispute that the petitioner, who is a doctor, has his medical infrastructure only in Gorakhpur, where the respondent/complainant had gone and it was there, that surgery was carried out by the petitioner. It is the case of complainant that when the complainant came back to Varanasi after surgery she felt some discomfort again, for which she approached another doctor in Varanasi. According to her the surgeon at Varansi was of the view that earlier surgery was not in order, hence she had to undergo second surgery in Varanasi conducted by another surgeon of Varanasi.

3. Subsequently, she filed a complaint against the petitioner before the District Forum, Varanasi, who after hearing the preliminary objections about the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, held that the District Forum, Varanasi did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the case and the complainant was advised to take-up the matter with the State Commission for transfer of ca