JEHANGIR HOSPITAL Vs. SAJID USMAN SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Mumbai (in short 'the State Commission') in complaint case No. CC/10/15. By the impugned order, the State Commission has admitted the complaint against opposite parties 1,2,3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 and dismissed the same against opposite parties 5 and 8 and thereafter called upon the opposite parties 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 to file the written version.

(2.) We have heard Mr.S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel representing the petitioners and have considered his submissions. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners would assail the impugned order on the ground that the State Commission has committed the jurisdictional error in admitting the complaint. The basis on his submissions is that firstly the impugned order has been passed by the State Commission without deciding an application dated 26.10.2010 moved by opposite parties 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 raising objections about the maintainability of the complaint on several grounds and secondly that there was no justification for dismissing the complaint against the opposite parties 5 and 8. We have noted down this submission only to be rejected because the impugned order was passed by the State Commission after hearing the Counsel for all the parties before it and specifically on the question of maintainability. Although the order does not specifically say that the order was passed on the applications moved by opposite parties 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 but for all intent and purposes, the State Commission considered and decided the application. As regards the dismissal of the complaint against opposite parties 5 and 8 is concerned, it may be noticed from the array of the parties that the opposite party No. 4-Dr. Keki Byram Grant was simply the Chairman of Ruby Hall Clinic while opposite party No. 8-Mr. Bomi Bhote was CEO, Ruby Hall Clinic and opposite party No.7-Dr. Purvez Keki Grant was Dy. Managing Trustee, Ruby Hall Clinic. It is pertinent to note that the complainant had also impleaded Mr. Bomi Bhote as one of the opposite parties. It must be noted that the Ruby Hall Clinic was a party through opposite party No. 1. The State Commission did not consider necessary the presence of above named opposite parties 5 and 8. In our view, the State Commission has not committed any error by dismissing the complaint against them. Mr. Sharma has then invited our attention to certain observations made in the penultimate-made paragraph of the impugned order which are to the following effect:

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the State Commission has prejudged the merits of the complaint even at the threshold i.e. the admission stage itself and the said observation/finding of the State Commission may cause great prejudice to the opposite parties when the complaint is put to trial and finally decided by the State Commission.