Back
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
D.S. Tripathi, President and Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Shraddha Semwal and Ors. – Complainants
versus
Dr. Rohit Srivastava and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Complaint No.1 of 2021
Decided on 19.4.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants: Sh. Ashish Chakravarty, Learned Counsel
For the Opp. Party No.1: Sh. Parveen Kumar, Learned Counsel
For the Opp. Party Nos.2 and 3: Dr. Atish Sinha, Medical Superintendent, Kailash Hospital
For the Opp. Party No.4: Sh. Yogesh Sethi, Learned Counsel
For the Opp. Party No.5: Sh. J.K. Jain, Learned Counsel
IMPORTANT POINT
State Commission - the value of consideration paid is only Rs. 6,82,576/-, which is not above Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present consumer complaint and it is accordingly dismissed, being not maintainable.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Practice and Procedure – Pecuniary Jurisdiction – of State Commission – Whether a complaint is maintainable before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission where the value of the consideration paid in the present case, i.e., the amount of medical expenses paid, was only Rs. 6,82,576/-, which is less than the consideration paid of more than Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore), as provided under Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, under the provisions of which Act, the present consumer complaint was filed before the State Commission on 28.01.2021 – On facts, on the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 28.01.2021, the State Commission had jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore. In the present case, as is stated above, the amount of medical expenses incurred was Rs. 6,82,576/-, as is being claimed as relief (A), which amount falls below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission, as the State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore, as it was on the date of filing of the consumer complaint – Therefore, the value of consideration paid is only Rs. 6,82,576/-, which is not above Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present consumer complaint and it is accordingly dismissed, being not maintainable. However, the complainants, if they are so advised, may file a consumer complaint before the District Commission having jurisdiction in the matter and in that event, may seek benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, according to law – Complaint dismissed. [Paras 8 to 11].
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
D.S. Tripathi, President—Smt. Shraddha Semwal W/o Sh. Pravesh Semwal as well as her husband – Sh. Pravesh Semwal and minor son – Master Avyukt Semwal (hereinafter to be referred as “the complainants”) have approached this Commission by filing the instant consumer complaint against Dr. Rohit Srivastava and others, seeking the following reliefs:—
“(A) That the Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3, jointly and / or severally be made to pay liquidated damages of Rs. 6,82,576/- to the complainant No. 1, 2 and 3, jointly or severally, for being deficient in providing subscribed services to the complainant No. 1, 2 and 3.
(B) That the Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3, jointly or severally, be ordered to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to the complainant No. 1, 2 and 3, jointly or severally, for being deficient in providing subscribed services to the complainant No. 1, 2 and 3 and under the head(s) of loss of vision, mental sufferance, expenses, loss of quality of life, loss of time, loss of independence and loss of money, loss of mental peace, frustration, anguish, pain, sufferance etc. which was / is / will be suffered by the complainant No. 1, 2 and 3 from the reckless, negligent acts / omissions of the Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3.
(C) That the Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3 be made to pay exemplary damages, payable jointly and / or severally, to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to the complainant No. 1, 2 and 3 jointly and / or severally.
(D) That full cost of the present complaint be kindly granted in favour of the complainant No. 1, 2 and 3 and jointly and / or severally against the Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3.
(E) Any other or further relief which may be granted in favour of the complainant No. 1, 2 and 3 and against the Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3 be kindly granted.”
2. Initially, the consumer complaint was filed against opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and later on, by way of amendment application dated 24.12.2021 moved on behalf of the complainants, impleadment of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and Oriental Insurance Company Limited, was sought as opposite party Nos. 4 & 5. The amendment application was allowed per order dated 24.12.2021 and the aforesaid insurance companies were directed to be arrayed as opposite party Nos. 4 & 5 respectively to the consumer complaint.
3. A perusal of the consumer complaint reveals that the same was instituted by the complainants in regard to alleged medical negligence on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 in the treatment of complainant No. 3, pleading loss of his eye vision due to non-treatment of Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), which is an eye disorder, caused by abnormal blood vessel growth in the light sensitive part of the eyes (retina) of premature infants.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainants as well as opposite party Nos. 1, 4 & 5 and Dr. Atish Sinha, Medical Superintendent, Kailash Hospital, on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 & 3, on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and perused the record.
5. In the present consumer complaint, a preliminary jurisdiction point arises as to how this consumer complaint is maintainable before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter to be referred as “the State Commission”), because the value of the consideration paid in the present case, i.e., the amount of medical expenses paid, was only Rs. 6,82,576/-, which is less than the consideration paid of more than Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore), as provided under Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, under the provisions of which Act, the present consumer complaint was filed before the State Commission on 28.01.2021. Here, it is pertinent to mention that nowhere in the consumer complaint, the complainants have mentioned as to how much amount was spent / incurred in the treatment, but looking into the relief clause of the consumer complaint, it is apparently clear that sum of Rs. 6,8
