16.02.2026 Present: None for the complainant Mr. Sumit Kumar Dubey and Mr. R. K. Shah, Counsel for the OP (Enrl. No. D/143-A/2010, Mobile: 9810874120, Email: sumitdubeyadv@gmail.com CC/293/2020

1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant seeking compensation for gross medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

2. The Opposite Party has filed an application IA-3551/2024 under section 47(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking dismissal/ return of the complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, which is pending consideration.

3. We have perused the material available on record.

4. Before proceeding to deal with the case on merits, we shall first deal with the application IA-3551/2024 filed by the Opposite Party i.e. the issue of ascertaining pecuniary jurisdiction.

5. A perusal of complaint shows that the Complainant the OP Hospital had raised a total bill of Rs. 27,903/- which was paid by Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project as the deceased was the beneficiary and was entitled for cashless treatment. The said factum is not disputed by the Complainant as is evident from the copy of the final bill placed on record by the Opposite Party wherein the total charges paid by the Complainant are reflected as Rs. 27,093/-

6. Thus, from the aforesaid it is clear that the amount paid by the Complainant for availing the services of the OPs is Rs.27,903/-.

7. Before admitting the complaint, we deem it appropriate to deal with the question whether this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 read with the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021

8. Section 47(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers jurisdiction upon the State Commission to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds ₹50,00,000 (Fifty Lakh) but does not exceed ₹2,00,00,000 (Two Crore).

9. The recent notification of the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District Commission, the State Commission and the National Commission) Rules, 2021, further reinforces this point. According to these rules:

(i) The pecuniary jurisdiction of District Commissions is up to ₹50 lakhs.

(ii) The pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commissions is for cases where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds ₹50 lakhs but does not exceed ₹2 crores.

(iii) The pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission is for cases where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds ₹2 crores.

10. This notification clarifies the jurisdictional limits provided under the Act at different levels of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Therefore, it is crucial to consider these rules and adhere to them when determining jurisdiction in consumer complaint cases.

11. M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., CC No. 833 of 2020, decided on 28.08.2020 emphasizes that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is determined solely by the value of the consideration paid for goods or services and not by the value of the goods or services themselves or any compensation. Thus, it is abundantly clear that, for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, only the value of the consideration paid for goods or services should be considered.

12. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision passed on

29.05.2025 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.282/2021 titled as Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2025 while upholding the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which also prescribes the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District, State and National Consumer Commissions held that the pecuniary jurisdiction of t