ANIL KUMAR vs INDRAPRASTHA APOLLO HOSPITAL

MR . J.K. Bhola, Counsel for complainant and Mr. A.K. Shukla, Counsel for opposite party have been heard at length. There is a preliminary objection about maintainability of complaint which has to be decided as rightly argued by both learned Counsel.

AN unfortunate incident happend in the District Badaun when while travelling from Ujhani to Bilsi the vehicle carrying the late Himanshu Rai met with an accident and the condition ultimately became precarious. He was admittedly taken to Badaun Hospital and then another hospital in Bareilly where no treatment is said to have been extended but immediate treatment was available at Delhi. He was shifted to Delhi as his condition was precarious. Admittedly, Himanshu Rai was then taken to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, opposite party. The complainant has put its claim through the complaint in the relief clause as under: ''It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Commission be pleased to: (a) Pass an order directing the respondent to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 80,00,000 (Rs. eighty lacs only) to the complainant. (b) Direct the respondent to return the amount of Rs. 4,55,755 (Rs. four lacs fifty -five thousand seven hundred fifty -five only) taken from the complainant due to faulty and defective treatment and for the dereliction of its duty which was legal and otherwise casted upon the respondent. (c) Pass necessary directions against the respondent to desist and resist from giving such false assurances and commitments to the public at large claiming itself to provide the state of art medical facility and treatment at its Hospitals across the country. (d) Pass any other further order/orders which this Honble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the complaint. (e) Cost of the present proceedings to the complainant and against the respondent.''

IN view of what has been claimed above, the relevance of the place of the accident loses significance.

MR . Bhola appearing for the complainant wanted to argue that since in the preliminary objection opposite party has said that the two hospitals, one at Badaun and other at Bareilly have not been impleaded as opposite party, thus two hospitals may be readily made parties. In fact this is an effort to get over the genuine difficulty which had arisen because of the preliminary objection in the path of sustaining the complaint for decision here. The aforesaid reliefs have no relevance to either the hospital at Baduan or Bareilly, therefore, the objection raised, is relating to the service if any which may have been rendered by either of those two hospitals. Since the complainant does not make any such allegation and does not claim any relief the aforesaid additional preliminary objection has nothing to do with the basic preliminary objection that territorial jurisdiction is not available in this Commission. Section 17 is very clear in its term. The reliefs have already examined above. The complaint is, therefore, not maintainable here.

NOTWITHSTANDING what has been stated above, the complaint is directed to be returned in original along with the entire record keeping its photocopy for office record to the complainant for presentation before the Honble State Commission, Delhi.

THE complaint is disposed of here with the aforesaid directions. Complaint disposed of.