The territorial jurisdiction of the National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited to events and causes of action that occur within the territory of India.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 1 - [TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION] - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 1]
Fact of the Case:

The complainants sought compensation for the death of the deceased, allegedly caused by the prescription and use of the drug 'Wellbutrin' in the USA. The opposite parties challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the National Commission to entertain the complaint.
Finding of the Court:

The National Commission held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the alleged events and causes of action occurred outside the territory of India.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction of the National Commission to entertain the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Act applies only to goods and services within the territory of India, and Indian courts cannot entertain complaints related to goods manufactured, sold, or services rendered outside India.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed by the National Commission due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

ORDER

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member. - Complainants are the widow and minor son of the deceased Akshantala. Opposite Party No. 1 is the manufacturer of medicine 'Wellbutrin', OP No. 2 is the Administrative Office of Opposite Party No. 1 in India, Opposite Party No. 3 is the doctor who treated the deceased Akshantala and OP No. 4 is the hospital, where Opposite Party No. 3 was practising and where he treated the deceased.

2. The allegations of the complainants are that deceased Akshantala was a Systems Applications and Products Consultant with Back Office Associates, Boston, USA. He migrated to USA on Hl-B Visa in the month of July 2005. Late Akshantala used to work late hours and as a result, he developed stress related health problem.

3. In October, 2008 deceased along with complainant No. 1 consulted Dr. Alexander Myers at High Point, North Carolina and he was prescribed drug Mitrazapine.

4. On 19.5.2009 as Dr. Alexander Myers was not available, the deceased along with complainant No. 1 visited and consulted Opposite Party No. 3 doctor in Opposite Party No. 4 hospital. Opposite Party No. 3 doctor after detailed check-up on medical history and background of the deceased, opined the deceased to be possibly 'bipolar' and instead of continuing with the medicines prescribed by the earlier doctor, prescribed the drug 'Wellbutrin' to the deceased. Opposite Party No. 3, however, failed to discuss and explain the side effects of 'Wellbutrin' or advised any precautions to be taken by the patient.

5. It is further alleged that on 27.5.2009 deceased Akshantala came to India for a short vacation. On the evening of 28.5.2009, the deceased consulted Dr. M.S. Reddy, practising Psychiatrist at Asha Hospital, Hyderabad. Dr. Reddy informed the complainant and her husband that before considering any treatment, he wanted to further examine the deceased Akshantala and requested them to visit again. No medication whatsoever was given by Dr. M.S. Reddy on that date.

6. That after visiting Dr. Reddy, the deceased told the complainant that he wished to visit his childhood friend in Hyderabad for dinner. The complainant No. 1 readily agreed but before she could reach her house, she got a call from her father-in-law that deceased Akshantala had committed suicide by jumping from a multi storeyed commercial complex. The concerned Sub-Inspector of Police Saif abad registered a case under Section 174, Cr.P.C., 1973 based upon the complaint made by the father of the deceased.

7. It is further the case of the complainant that subsequent to the death of Akshantala, the complainant saw an article on internet which stated that use of 'Wellbutrin' can cause suicidal tendency and abnormal behaviour on the person using the drug.

8. It is alleged that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), USA on 1.7.2009 had issued a drug advisory warning requiring Opposite Party No. 1 to expand the black box warning on the label of medicine bottle mentioning about side, effects i.e. increase of suicidal thoughts in the person using the medicine. It is alleged that use of the drug can cause suicidal tendency in 3 to 5 percent of users. Opposite Party No. 2 despite of that continued the sale of 'Wellbutrin' without adequate warning about side effects including suicide.

9. As regards Opposite Party No. 3 it is contended that opposite party No. 3 while prescribing the drug 'Wellbutrin', failed in his duty to adequately educate the deceased and the complainant about side effects particularly the suicidal tendency and the precautions to be taken while using the medicines which amounts to deficiency in service. So far as Opposite Party No. 4 is concerned, according to the complainants, since Opposite Party No. 3 belonged to Opposite Party No. 4 hospital, Opposite Party No. 4 is vicariously liable for the loss caused to the complainants.

10. Complainants thus filed consumer complaint seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,29,17,500 from the opposite parties along with 24% interest

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

The territorial jurisdiction of the National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited to events and causes of action that occur within the territory of India.

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis