IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Interpretation of the word “or” in sub-section 2(a) and in sub-section 2(b) in section 17 has to be made with reason and logic, with the due application of mind, without leading to absurdity.
(2) Section 17 of the Act 1986 is similar in content and nature to the section 20 of the CPC.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Member—The question before us is whether or not the complaint falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission at Delhi.

2. On 13.05.2019, after hearing learned counsel for both sides, and after perusing the material on record, and after the due consideration, we recorded the sum and substance of our considered view in the daily Order

Dated 13.05.2019

Order

Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.

Perused the material on record.

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasoned judgment to follow.

Meanwhile, the liberty provided by the State Commission to the complainants “to approach the appropriate Fora to seek their remedy” remains unaffected.

3. We are giving our reasoned decision hereinafter.

4. The State Commission at Delhi, vide its impugned Order dated 22.11.2017, held that the complaint cannot be entertained in the State Commission at Delhi and returned the complaint for filing it before the forum having the territorial jurisdiction.

Shri Sarvesh Kumar Singh and others have filed this complaint before this Commission, for short complainants against Kailash Health Care Hospital and others, hereinafter referred to as OPs, alleging medical negligence leading to the death of his wife causing disruption in the entire family as the deceased is survived by two infant children apart from her husband, the complainant herein.

- - - - -

The hospital of the OP is at Noida. The cause of action in the matter arose at Noida where the treatment was done to the wife of the complainant. For this purpose whether this commission has a territorial jurisdiction or not, we may advert to provisions of Section 17(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. The said provision of law posits at under-

17{(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,-

a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution, or

c) the case of action, wholly or in part, arises.}

On perusal of the provision of the act it is manifestly clear that there are two important components to arrive at a conclusion regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Commission, namely,

(i) the place where the OP resides or works for gain; and, secondly,

(ii) where cause of action arose.

The ld. Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the written statement filed by the OP raising no objection with regard to their averment to the effect that this Commission enjoys the territorial jurisdiction. To put it differently his argument is that once the OP has not raised any objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission in their written statement, they are estopped raising this point at the time of the final arguments of the case.

We do not agree with the submission of the complainant as agreement between parties can not determine the territorial jurisdiction of the juridical fora.

The Hon’ble NCDRC in Neha Singhal vs. Unitech Ltd. II(2011) CPJ 88 (NC) has held as under-

“Agreement between parties cannot oust original jurisdiction to defeat the purpose and object of the Act”.

The ld. Counsel for the complainant had also argued that the Head Office of the OP being in Delhi, this Commission enjoys the territorial jurisdiction. In our view the place where the cause of action arose is also to be taken into account.

Their Lordship in the Hon’b