Date of filing :26.11.2024 Date of order :05.02.2025 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

C.C.No.: 24 OF 2024

1. Smt.Sujata Gurbasayya Swami, …COMPLAINANT (Adv.V.S.Swami)

2. Tejaswini”Shrawani D/o Gurubasayya Swami, U/g of complainant No.1.

3. Ishwari D/o Gurubasayya Swami, U/g of complainant No.1, R/o All above post Kunhali, Tq.Omerga, Dist.Dharashiv.

VERSUS

1. Dr.Vijay S/o Nivruti Patil, …OPPONENTS R/o Vijay Clinic, Arogya Nagar, Omerga, Tq.Omerga, Dist.Dharashiv.

2. Vijay Clinic, Arogya Nagar, Omerga, Tq.Omerga, Dist.Dharashiv.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Dr.Nisha.A.Chavhan, Hon’ble Member, Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member J U D G M E N T Per Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

The complainant filed this consumer complainant under section 47(1) read with section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

2019 ( in short the C.P. Act)

2. It is the case of complainant that she is residing at Kunhali Dist. Dharashiv with her two minor girls i.e. complainant no.2 and 3. The opponent no.1 is a doctor by profession and running a hospital namely “Vijay Clinic” i.e. opponent no.2. On 04.09.2023 husband of complainant, Gurubasayya approached to opponent with a complainant of acute pain in heart and stomach and paid Rs. 1500/-towards the processing fees for admission and initial treatment. Opponent Doctor has not treated him properly and because of medical negligence the husband of complainant died. Opponent has not followed the standard practice and protocol towards the patient to save his life in emergence situation. As such complainant filed this consumer complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opponent and claim total compensation of Rs. 1,50,50,000/- Complainant filed relevant documents in support of her complaint.

3. On perusing the complaint and documents filed by complainant the following points arise for our determination. We have noted them along with our findings against it for the reasons follow.

POINTS FINDINGS (I). Weather this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint ---- In negative.

(II). What order. ----- As per final order.

REASONS As to point no.(I).

4. Learned Adv.V.S.Swami for complainant submitted that this Commission is having the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint as complainant paid Rs. 1500/- to opponent for treatment of her husband. Also complainant sought Rs.1,20,00,000/- for salary of deceased, if he could have been live up to his retirement age, Rs.15,00,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs. 5,00,000/- for unfair trade practice, Rs. 10,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- for not providing necessary documents and Rs. 25,000/- for cost of litigation. As such complainant has sought the relief worth Rs.1,50,50,000/- which is within the pecuniary limits of this Commission therefore this Commission is having pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint.

5. However we don’t agree with the submission made by Adv. Swami 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 the goods or services or the compensation claimed but on the consideration paid for the value of the goods or services as the case may be. In present case Rs. 1500/- was paid by complainant to opponent towards treatment of her husband. It means that, the consideration claimed to be paid by complainant is Rs.1500/- which is below Rs. 50 lakh. As such we are of the view that this Commission is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. Hence, we answer point no. (I) is negative.

As to point no. (II).

6. In vie