Back
K.S.Patel
A-21-27
Page 1 of 4
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Court-3
Complaint NO. 27 of 2021 Dt: 29.10.2021
Dr. Pandit Jagdeep Janakrai
Vs.
H. C. G. Hospital & Anr.
Order below Preliminary Objection
On Behalf of Opponent No.1 and 2 respectively
1. The Complainant – Dr. Pandit Jagdeep Janakrai has filed this
complaint for Rs. 5 crore for medical negligence. The preliminary
objections is that the value of consideration was Rs. 7.50 lakhs, which
would be the deciding factor for which the fixing the pecuniary
jurisdiction and not the amount compensation claimed, under the
New Act.
2. Heard the complainant in person and advocate Shri Krutarth K.
Pandya, for the complainant No.1 and advocate Shri Arun D. Oza, for
the complainant No.2.
3. In M/s. Pyaridevi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Consumer case No.
833 of 2020, the National Commission, held that for determining the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission
or National Commission, the value of goods or services paid as
consideration, alone has to be taken and not the value of goods or
Details
DD
MM
YY
Date of Judgment
29 10
2021 Date of filling
26 08
2021 Duration
03 02
K.S.Patel
A-21-27
Page 2 of 4
services purchased or taken, and the complaint was accordingly
dismissed.
4. The complainant argues that subject matter of that judgment is
different from the present case of negligence. It is not acceptable for
the reason that the judgment has proceeded simply on interpretation
of the provision and was not dependent upon facts. Nor could be it.
5. The complainant argued that the subject matter cannot simply be the
compensation for negligent services apart from which loss of earning,
loss of asset etc. are also to be taken into account while fixing the
total amount of compensation and therefore only value of services
cannot be held to decide the point of pecuniary jurisdiction. The
argument is not acceptable because the compensation itself is
comprised of loss of asset, loss of earning etc. and for the purpose of
jurisdiction under the New Act only the consideration paid is to be
taken into account.
6. He argued that the complaint if tried by the District Commission, it
would not have jurisdiction to pass the amount of Rs. 5 crore or as
the case may be. The argument is not acceptable, for the reason that
section 39 (1) (d) (e), nowhere prescribes any limit to the compensation
that can be granted, more particularly when Section 34 as to
jurisdiction of the District Commission provides that the District shall
have jurisdiction to entertain complaints were value of goods or the
services paid as consideration does not exceed Rs. 1 crore.
7. He argued that the word consideration has not been defined under
New Act and therefore it would cover claim i.e. Rs. 5 crore or so. The
argument is not acceptable for the reason that the amount claim
K.S.Patel
A-21-27
Page 3 of 4
towards loss of earning, loss of asset etc. are all parts of compensation
only and not consideration. Whereas the value of services paid as
consideration is to be looked into which admittedly would be Rs. 7.50
lakhs.
8. The complainant argued that under Section 47 (1) (b) as to
jurisdiction of State Commission, there is ample scope with this
commission to transfer the case. It is not acceptable for the reason
that it speaks for the case pending or disposed of with the District
Commission and not in State Commission.
9. It is argued for the opponents that the complainant has to withdraw
the case or it has to be dismissed, as has been done by the State
Commission in complaint No. 23 of 2021. Now, Section 36 (2) provides
for the District Commission by order to admit the complaint or reject.
It is applicable to this Commission also read Section 49, it was
pointed out by the Bench that the complaint is not dismissed unless it
