SAI HOSPITAL Vs. SHRIDHAR S. PARADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 25.1.2012 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in Complaint Case No.CC/ 11 /175, the opposite party to the complaint has filed the present petition. The order is rather short and reads as under:

(2.) We have heard Mr. Mudit Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner. His main grievance is that the State Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction while making certain observations/ findings at the stage of admission of the complaint itself which may cause prejudice to the case and cause of the petitioner/opposite party. Having gone through the observations made by the State Commission, we are also of the same opinion. Section 12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 enjoins upon a Consumer Fora to examine the maintainability of a complaint before issuing notice to the opposite party. What a Consumer Fora is expected to examine at this stage is that the complainant raises a consumer dispute within the meaning of the Act; complainant is a consumer; and that the complaint is not barred by limitation as envisaged under Section 24 of the Act besides that the complaint falls within its territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. If all the parameters laid down in the Act are satisfied, the Consumer Fora must issue the notice to the opposite party(ies). If the consumer has decided to issue notice, no detailed orders/findings/ observations are required to be noted down in the Order. Lest it may cause prejudice to the parties. In our view, the State Commission, in the present case, has overstepped its jurisdiction by making certain findings in regard to negligence on the premise that it was a case of res ipsa loquitur and no expert, opinion would be necessary. The order, therefore, to the extent that it has recorded certain observations which may prejudice the case of the petitioner at the trial of the complaint need to be expunged. We order accordingly. However, all the questions of fact and law would be open for consideration before the State Commission at the time of the hearing of the complaint. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed off. A copy of this order be given Dasti to the Counsel for the petitioner.