NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. NC/CC/81/2022 WITH NC/IA/5817/2022 (EXTENSION OF TIME FILING WRITTEN STATEMENT)

NC/IA/6370/2024 (ADDITIONAL FACT)

NC/IA/6704/2022 (CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT)

NC/IA/15675/2023 (PLACING ADDL. DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/7021/2022 (MAINTAINABILITY OF COMPLAINT)

NC/IA/4432/2022 (PLACING ADDL. DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/6705/2022 (CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REPLY)

ASHISH RAJAN KHERA & ANR.

PRESENT ADDRESS - 11B TOWER 2 HIBISCUS SECTOR 50 GURUGRAM HARYANA GURUGRAM,HARYANA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus GLOBAL HEALTH LTD ORS PRESENT ADDRESS - SECTOR-38, GURUGRAM, , HARYANA -

122001GURUGRAM,HARYANA.

GENE BANDHU PRESENT ADDRESS - AT - 209-C, 2ND & 3RD FLOOR, MASJID MOTH, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-II, NEW DELHI - 110049 DR. NITIN SOOD PRESENT ADDRESS - MEDANTA - THE MEDICITY, SECTOR-38, GURUGRAM, HARYANA -

122001GURUGRAM,HARYANA.

DR. VIMARSH RAINA PRESENT ADDRESS - AT - 209-C, 2ND & 3RD FLOOR, MASJID MOTH, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-II, NEW DELHI - 110049 .......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

FOR THE COMPLAINANTS : MS. SHALEEN SRIVASTAVA, ADV. MS. ANGNA DEWAN, ADV. MS. CHANANIKA DAS, ADV.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES : MR. JAGAN NATH BHANDARI, PROXY COUNSEL (IN VC) FOR OP NO.2 MS. AKSHITA S. JAITLEYM, ADV. FOR OP-1&3 DATED: 08/12/2025

ORDER

IA No.7021/2022 ( Maintainability Of Complaint)

1. This Interim Application. No. 7021 of 2022 has been filed by Opposite Parties No. 1 and 3, seeking adjudication on the issue of maintainability of the Consumer Complaint No. 81 of 2022 vis-à-vis the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. It is submitted that the present Complaint has been filed by the Complainants, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 have filed their reply to the said complaint, denying the allegations and averments therein. They argued that in order for the complaint to be maintainable before this Commission, the value of the goods and services paid as consideration ought to exceed Rs.2 crore and since the present Complaint does not fulfil the requisite threshold of Rs.2 crores as consideration paid for the value of goods and services, the complaint is not maintainable. Learned Counsel submitted that a sum of Rs.66,52,934.86/- had been paid while receiving medical treatment at Opposite Party No.1 under the care and supervision of the Opposite Party No. 3 and a sum of Rs.42,00,000/- had been paid to Opposite Party No.4. Accordingly, the total value of consideration paid by the Complainants to all Opposite Parties was approximately a sum of Rs.1,08,52,934/-, which is below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission as prescribed in the Act. Therefore, the present Consumer Complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine on this ground alone without prejudice to the other grounds. Reliance was placed on "Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others", 2020 SCC Online NCDRC 845 [Consumer Case No. 833 of 2020] which held that:

"8. It appears that the Parliament, while enacting the Act of 2019 was conscious of this fact and to ensure that Consumer should approach the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whether it is District, State or National only the value of the consideration paid should be taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and not value of the goods or services and compensation. and that is why a specific provision has been made in Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) providing for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Commission respectively’’.

2. It was stated that where issues of law capable of disposing of the matter in part or entirety are involved the concerned court/tribunal, in terms of Order XIV Rule 2