JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

            By this order, I propose to dispose of the above noted revision petitions, one filed by complainant Anjali Moitra and other filed by opposite party Kothari Medical Centre against the impugned order of the State Commission dated 30.11.2012.

2.         Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the disposal of above noted revision petitions are that complainant Anjali Moitra filed a consumer complaint before Kolkata District Forum, Unit-I alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties M/s Kothari Medical Centre and Dr. Raj Kumar Chajjer. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties as also the evidence on record allowed the complaint against Kothari Medical Centre / opposite party no.2 and directed the medical centre to pay compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.  No order against opposite party no.1 i.e. Raj Kumar Chhajer was passed.

3.         Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, Opposite Party No.2 Kothari Medical Centre approached the State Commission.  In the memo of appeal, apart from the ground of challenge on merits, OP No.2 raised the issue of locus standi of Anjali Moitra to maintain the consumer complaint before the District Forum.  The State Commission while agreeing with the findings of the District Forum on merits, however, modified the order of the District Forum by reducing the quantum of compensation to Rs.10,00 lakhs.

4.         Anjali Moitra, being aggrieved of reduction of compensation from Rs.15.00 lakhs to Rs.10.00 lakhs has preferred the revision petition No. 77 of 2013 seeking enhancement of compensation whereas M/s Kothari Medical Centre being aggrieved of the impugned order has preferred Revision Petition No. 227 of 2013 seeking dismissal of the complaint.

5.         Learned Shri N R Mukherjee, Advocate for Kothari Medical Centre has challenged the impugned order both on facts and law.  He has argued at length.   I am referring to arguments of learned counsel for Kothari Medical Centre on merits because this revision petition can be disposed of on the legal issue of maintainability due to lack of locus standi. Learned counsel has contended that impugned order of the foras below are without jurisdiction because Anjali Moitra who filed the consumer complaint is not covered under the definition of consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and she could not have filed the complaint on behalf of her husband without a proper authorization or Power of Attorney in her favour.  Learned counsel has contended that State Commission while disallowing plea of locus standi has misinterpreted the judg