Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2510
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Dr.Nisha A.Chavhan, CJ, Nagesh C.Kumbre, J
Prakash Ramdas Pachdhare – Appellant
Versus
Sahyadri Hospital – Respondent
Complaint Case No.: 16 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv.V.B.Bagadiya
For the Respondents: Adv.P.P.Kothari, Adv.Kothari, Adv.R.S.Sone
Pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission is determined by the consideration paid for services rendered, not the compensation claimed.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections 35 and 47 - Consumer complaint filed regarding alleged negligence in medical treatment - Complainant claimed deficiency in service for treatment costs of Rs.27,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- - Commission found it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction as consideration paid was below Rs.50 lakh. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Jurisdiction - Pecuniary jurisdiction established on value of consideration paid for goods or services, not on compensation claims - Complaint returned to be filed at District Consumer Commission - No order as to costs in this case. (Paras 5-8)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consumer complaint filed under the consumer protection act regarding hospital negligence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding jurisdiction and compensation amounts. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observed that the pecuniary jurisdiction is based on payment for services. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. final order returning the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. (Para 9) |
O R D E R
(Delivered on 29/04/2025)
Per Mr.N.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
The complainant filed this consumer complainant under section 45 read with section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act
2019 (in short the C.P. Act)
2. It is the case of complainant that, his son Rushikesh resides at Pune and on 16.01.2024 he was admitted in opponent hospital for treatment by his friends. Before arrival of complainant from Aurangabad to opponent hospital, the doctors of opponent hospital performed operation on Rushikesh and shifted him in ICU. Due to the negligence of opponent in treatment of Rushikesh, there is no any single improvement in his health and he is still bedridden from the discharge of opponent hospital. Complainant paid Rs.27,00,000/- towards the bill of opponent hospital. Due to negligence, carelessness and wrong treatment given by opponent hospital, there is no improvement in the health of Rushikesh and complainant undergoing physical and mental agony and suffering. As such complainant filed this consumer complainant for deficiency in service on the part of opponent hospital and claim compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- and refund of paid bill of Rs.27,00,000/-. Complainant filed copy of medical treatment reports, copy of bills paid etc.
3. Opponent hospital appeared before this Commission and filed its written statement. Also an application for preliminary objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission was also filed by opponent and complainant filed say on it.
4. On perusing the complaint and documents filed by complainant and an application for preliminary objection filed by opponent, following points arise for our determination. We have noted them along with our findings against it for the reasons follow.
Sr.No. Points Answer.
1. Weather this Commission has In negative.
pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
2. What order ? As per final order.
REASONS As to point No.1-.
5. Learned Adv.R.S.Sone for complainant submitted that this Commission is having the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint as complainant paid Rs.27,00,000/- to opponent hospital for treatment of his son. Also complainant sought Rs.50,00,000/- for compensation. As such complainant has sought the relief worth more than Rs. 50 lakh which is within the pecuniary limits of this Commission therefore this Commission is having pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. Opponent filed an application on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction is only to mislead the Commission and prolong the matter.
6. On the contrary Adv. Kothari for opponent submitted that, it is settle position of law under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 that while deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of Commission only the value of goods and services, paid as consideration has to be considered. This Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for which value of goods and services paid as consideration exceeds Rs.50,00,000/-but not exceeds Rs.2,00,00,000/-. It is also submitted by Adv. Kothari that due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, the complaint may kindly be dismissed.
7. However we don’t agree with the submission made by Adv. Sone for complainant. Section 47 (1) (a) (i) of C.P. Act read with Central Government Circular dated 31.12.2021, stipulates that, State Commission would have to entertain the complaints where the value of goods or services “paid as a consideration” is more than Rs. 50 lakh upto Rs. 2 crore. The provisions are very much clear that pecuniary limit of this Commission is to be decided not on the basis of value of t
