HERAMERLAL Vs. AJOY PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 1.1.2000 the Forum dismissed the complaint petition as not maintainable. However, the complainant was given liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate Forum.

(2.) The complainant approached the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O. Ps. in the matter of performing the cataract operation on his eye. O. P. No.1 filed a petition on 7.12.1999 challenging the maintainability of the case. According to the O. Ps. determination of the dispute involves consideration of complicated questions of facts including evidence of experts which cannot be undertaken in a summary proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act. It appears that on the same date the complainant filed a petition making several allegations against the O. P. No.1 regarding fabrication and manipulation of documents. This petition was resisted by filing objection. In this backdrop the Forum proceeded to determine the question of maintainability of the case. It appears that the Forum relied on a decision of the National Commission reported in I (1993) CPJ 88 (NC ). It appears that the National Commission observed that the Consumer Protection Act and the machinery thereunder cannot be effectively utilised for determining complicated questions of fraud and cheating. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the case reported in 1997 CPJ 659 (NC ). It was held therein that the complaint involving allegation of cheating and forgery cannot be satisfactorily decided in time bound proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act. It appears that the Forum observed that the dispute of the present nature requires taking of elaborate oral evidence and adducing of voluminous documentary documents and a detailed scrutiny and assessment thereof. In this context it is worthwhile to note the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in this regard. The National Commission observed that the Forums constituted under the Act are vested with the power to examine the witness on oath and to order discovery and production of documents. It has also held that such power is to be exercised in cases where the issues involved are simple such as the defective quality of any goods purchased or any shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of the service which the respondent has contracted to perform for consideration. Even in such cases if it appears to the concerned Forum under the Act that the issues raised cannot be determined without taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence, it is open to it to decline to exercise the jurisdiction and refer the party to his ordinary remedy by way of suit. It appears that the Forum had discussed the points of law decided by the Hon'ble National Commission very carefully and declined to adjudicate the dispute. We are in full agreement with the views taken by the Forum and find that the appeal is without any merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed on contest.