At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE
By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY
For the Complainant: Rajesh Biswas, Shibaji Shankar Dhar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: Barun Prasad, Romi Chatterjee, Ranju Sarkar Advocate.
Kalidas Mukherjee, President
This order relates to hearing on MA 472 of 2015 filed by the Complainant praying for amendment of the petition of complaint reducing the amount of reliefs claimed in the complaint petition. Another application bearing MA 244 of 2015 has been filed by OP Nos.5 and 10 challenging the maintainability of the complaint case on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The OP No.10 has filed the Miscellaneous Application bearing no.243 of 2015 praying for expunging the name of OP No.10.
The Learned Counsel for OP Nos.5 and 10 submitted that the complaint case is not maintainable, in as much as, the amount of medical bill as stated in the complaint is Rs.13,29,838/- and in the prayer portion of the complaint the Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.90 lakh. It is submitted that the total valuation would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
The Learned Counsel for the Complainant opposed the petition and submitted that this Commission has to consider the subject matter of the case and should not take into consideration the technicalities of the matter. It is submitted that the amount of compensation should be Rs.70 lakh and it was wrongly typed as Rs.90 lakh and for this typographical mistake the Complainant has filed MA 472 of 2015 reducing the claim of the Complainant with regard to compensation and in that case the complaint will be maintainable.
The OP No.10 has filed MA 243 of 2015 praying for expunging the name of OP No.10. It is submitted that the OP No.10 was the expert and he examined the patient once only.
The Learned Counsel for the Complainant raised objection and submitted that the opinion of the said doctor (OP No.10) was necessary for effective adjudication of this case.
The Learned Counsel for OP No.1 has submitted that the complaint is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and the amendment has been prayed for by the Complainant to fill up the lacuna and it was an afterthought.
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. It appears from paragraph 15 of the complaint that the total medical bill was to the tune of Rs.13,29,838/- and in the prayer portion of the complaint Rs.90 lakh has been prayed for as compensation. In the decision reported in 2015 (3) CPR 114 (NC) [Hema Gadodia vs. Calcutta Medical Research Institute & Ors.] it has been held that payments made to Hospital would constitute value of services engaged by deceased or family members for his treatment. In the decision reported in 1996 (2) CPR 26 (NC) [M/s Quality Foils India Ltd. vs. Bank of Madura Ltd. & Anr.] it has been held that the total value of goods and/or services as well as that of compensation would determine the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. Relying on the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that total value of the complaint would exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The complaint is, therefore, not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
As the complaint is not
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
maintainable there is no necessity to deal with the point raised in MA 243 of 2015 whereby prayer has been made for expunction of the name of OP No.10. The complaint case 297 of 2013 is dismissed being not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. MA 243 of 2015, MA 244 of 2015 and MA 472 of 2015 are accordingly disposed of.