Back
1 CC/06/2021
Date of filing : 01.02.2021
Date of order :21.12.2021
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
AURANGABAD.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. : 06 OF 2021
1. Shilpa w/i Girish Bhattad,
R/o Ashtavinayak Enclave, Bansilal Nagar,
Aurangabad.
2. Ankur s/o Girish Bhattad,
R/o As above.
3. Amey s/o Girish Bhattad,
R/o As above.
Complainants.
VERSUS
1. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre,
Through Bharat Kumar Taparia, Chairman Trustee,
Bombay Hospital Avenue, Mumbai. 400020
2. Bharat Kumar Taparia, Chairman Trustee,
Bombay Hospital Avenue, Mumbai. 400020.
3. Harsh V. Lodha, Trustee,
Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre,
Bombay Hospital Avenue, Mumbai 400020.
4. Smt. Nandini Nopany Trustee,
Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre,
Bombay Hospital Avenue, Mumbai 400020.
5. Deepak Parekh, Trustee,
Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre,
Bombay Hospital Avenue, Mumbai 400020.
2 CC/06/2021
6. Shyam Malpani, Secretary,
Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre,
Bombay Hospital Avenue, Mumbai 400020.
7. Dr.C.E.Deopujari,
Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre,
Bombay Hospital Avenue, Mumbai 400020.
Opponents.
CORAM :Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.
Present : Adv.S.G.Ladda for appellants,
Adv.G.N.Shenoy for respondent.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 21/12/2021)
Per Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. The complainants Shilpa Girish Bhattad and others
have filed this complaint under section of consumer
protection act 2019. It is alleged that husband of complaint
number 1 Girish Bhattad, aged about 47 years was admitted
in Bombay Hospital, Medical Research centre Mumbai, on 4.
4.8.2019. He died on 13. 8.2019 due to negligence on the
part of treating doctor who has performed operation on him.
2. On admitting the complaint the opponent no.1to7 gave
appearance, filed their written version and also submitted
separate objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction in view of sec
47, of the consumer protection Act 2019.
3. It is the contention of the opponents that, in the
complaint
the
complainant
has
admitted
that
total
3 CC/06/2021
consideration paid by complainants is Rs.75,000/-. However,
the claim of complainant is for Rs. 4 Crores along with
interest at the rate of 18% p.a., since the date of filing till
realisation of the amount.
4. It is the contention of the opponents that in view of
section 47, of Consumer Protection Act,2019, the state
Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints
where the value of goods or services paid as consideration,
exceeds Rupees 1 crore but does not exist Rs. 10 crores.
5. The complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.4
crores. It does not determine the jurisdiction, but it is the
consideration paid to the opponents that decides the same.
Here, admittedly the complaint paid consideration of
Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, the State Commission has no
jurisdiction to determine the claim. Hence, it be dismissed for
want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
6. On behalf of the opponents the Ld.Adv.Shri Shenoy
requested to decide the preliminary issue as to pecuniary
jurisdiction and for hearing on said application.
7. Therefore, matter was kept for say of complainant and
for hearing on the application.
8. The Ld. Adv. for complainant Shri.Ladda has not filed
reply. However, on his authority letter, Adv.Shaikh has
submitted that necessary order be passed.
4 CC/06/2021
9. Heard
