HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL Vs. AMIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 24.2.2010 whereby the application of the OP/Appellant has been dismissed on the ground that Delhi being one District, any District Forum can is competent to entertain consumer complaint filed before it irrespective of the fact that the OP does not reside or work for gain within the jurisdiction of that Forum.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the present appeal, precisely stated are that, the Respondent/ Complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum -VI, KG Barracks, New Delhi wherein it was alleged that the complainant had gone to the Holy Family Hospital, Okhla Road, New Delhi for the treatment of Master Abraaz Ahmad Khan, the son of his friend, on 3rd February, 2008 at about 8.40 p.m. and had paid a sum of Rs. 100 as Fee towards consultation charges and the said Master Abraaz Ahmad Khan was attended to by the doctors at casualty and had prescribed an Injection and advised to purchase the same from the Medical Store inside the hospital ; that the complainant had purchased the said Injection for Master Abraaz Ahmad Khan, the patient, vide receipt No. 0409B0032335, and after purchasing the said injection the patient was treated and was later discharged; that after reaching home it was noticed by him that the price of the injection as per MRP Rs. 369 only whereas the receipt indicated that charges of the injection as Rs. 406 and that the complainant reported the matter to the Holy Family Hospital, who refused to refund the excess charges of Rs. 37 and had misbehaved with the complainant , and as such the complainant stood cheated and thereby suffered physical and mental agony as well as great mental strain.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Pankaj Nagpal, Advocate, Counsel for the Appellant at the admission stage and have perused the impugned order, which has been based on the view already taken by this Commission regarding territorial jurisdiction. Few of such cases, wherein this view was expressed are F.A. 07/18 decided on 31.10.2007 and FA. No. 07/759 decided on 10.10.2008 . It was observed that: "Delhi is a Union Territory and is one District. It is for the administrative convenience that this District has been divided into 10 Districts on the pattern of the police districts, though there are 9 Police Districts. One District Forum has been even further sub -divided in order to see that the disputes of the consumers are decided expeditiously as prescribed as Section 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , which reads as under: Refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to gave his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , provides that there shall be one District Forum in one District. Since Delhi happens to be one District, every District Forum has territorial jurisdiction over every case and if any District Forum takes final decision in the matter, irrespective of having no administrative territorial jurisdiction, the order cannot be set aside nor is vitiated. Order can be set aside, if the person taking final decision is not competent to take decision. District Forum is presided by a person who is or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge and since every District Forum is headed by such persons, therefore, any decision taken by any District irrespective of the complaint being not within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned District Forum cannot be set aside or held invalid".