IMPORTANT POINT
When the claim is restricted than the actual amount spent/incurred, the State Commission cannot dismiss the matter on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.

1. This instant appeal has been filed by the appellants / complainants against the impugned order of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the complaint was dismissed on ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.

2. The complainants have filed a complaint before the State Commission for alleged medical negligence against the OPs and demanded a sum to the extent of Rs. 1 crore, as compensation. Heard Mr. Abhishek Verma, appellant No. 7 (one of the complainants) in person. He submitted that the complaint was filed on 24.08.2009. The pleadings were complete. The OPs had filed their written version on 30.03.2011 but had never raised any question of pecuniary jurisdiction, however, the State Commission, vide its order dated 26.06.2018, dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to move the appropriate forum for the redressal of grievances. The State Commission after 9 years dismissed the complaint on the said ground.

3. I have perused the record and the impugned order of the State Commission. On bare perusal of the complaint and the prayer clause therein, it is clear that the complainants have claimed an amount of Rs.99,99,923.61 as detailed below:

The money spent towards treatment	Rs. 14,67,423.61
The money spent towards travelling expenses	Rs. 1,20,000.00
The Compensation for the pain and agony suffered and sustained by the Claimants due to the dishonesty, negligence, inefficiency of skill, deficiency in service of the opposite parties and causing the death of Smt. Sharada Verma	Rs. 84,00,000.00
The money spent towards miscellaneous	Rs. 12,500.00
Total	Rs. 99,99,923.61

As stated by complainant in person, they have spent some more amount of money but they have restricted their claim to the extent of Rs. 1 crore.

4. On perusal of the observations made by the State Commission, the State Commission arrived at the compensation of total Rs.1,02,41,674.49 as below:

1.	Cost of treatment	Rs. 14,67,423.61
2.	Cost of I.V. Administered	Rs. 2,41,750.88
3.	Value of compensation	Rs. 84,00,000.00
4.	Value of Misc. expenses	Rs. 12,500.00
5.	Cost of travelling expenses	Rs. 1,20,000.00
	Total	Rs. 1,02,41,674.49

5. According to the State Commission, the aggregate value of compensation exceeds the pecuniary limit of State Commission as prescribed under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In my view, though, the complainants have spent some more amount on treatment aspects but they have not claimed it and their claim was restricted to the extent of Rs. 1 crore only. It is not beyond Rs. 1 crore. It goes without saying that the final compensation awarded, if medical negligence is determined, would be at the considered wisdom of the State Commission. In my view, in the interest of justice, there is need for proper and correct approach and adjudication of the complaint. The case was filed way back in 2009 and dismissal at the final stage. I set aside the order passed by the State Commission and the complaint is remitted back to the State Commission to proceed further and decide the matter as per the law. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.11.2018.

6. In case any respondent has any objection to the matter being restored, the proceedings before the State Commission may not commence and both sides (i.e. appellant and respondents; all) may appear before the Circuit Bench of this Commission at Kolkata on 27.11.2018.

7. The principal onus of informing the respondents of both dates i.e. 14.11.2018 before the State Commission and 27.11.2018 before the Circuit Bench of this Commission at Kolkata (if the contingency so arises) will be on the complainant - appellant.

8. The Registry may ensure that a copy of this or