Dr. Susanta Roy vs Pranab Kumar & Anr

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, J

The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP-2-Dr. Susanta Roy, against the order dated 18.05.2018 passed in F.A. No. A/53/2017 by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'State Commission') whereby the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, 'District Forum') at Barasat in complaint case No. 238 of 2016 was set aside.

The brief facts of the case are that initially the complainant filed a complaint No. 354 of 2014 before the District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II. The OP challenged the maintainability of the complaint before the said forum as the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II. The District Forum returned the complaint with the direction that the complainant shall file the complaint before the appropriate forum i.e. 24-Parganas (North) at Barasat having the due territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, on 19.04.2016, the complainant filed a complaint bearing No. 238 of 2016 before the District Forum, Barasat.

The OP filed his written version. The OP took objection that the complainant had filed a complaint with insertion of some additional facts and that the prayer clause had been amended.

The District Forum, Barasat dismissed the complaint on the ground of maintainability with the observation that the complainant did not obey the order of the District Forum, Kolkata Unit-II. Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred first appeal No. A/53/2017 before the State Commission. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, Barasat and the matter was remanded back to the District Forum, Barasat for further adjudication. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner/OP filed the instant revision petition.

We have heard Ms. Mousumi Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage. She submitted that the complainant has not obeyed the order of the District Forum, Kolkata in the true sense and has filed a separate complaint having fresh facts and prayer. Such an amended complaint cannot be allowed to be filed.

We have perused the record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments from the side of the petitioner. On perusal of both the complaints i.e. complaint No. 354 of 2014 (District Forum, Kolkata) and No. 238 of 2016 (District Forum, Barasat), we do not find any major alteration or modification made by the complainant while filing the complaint before the Consumer Forum, Barasat. The cause of action and the alleged medical negligence remain unaltered. So do the substantive facts and the essence of the contentions. However, we have noticed that at the first instance, before the District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II, the complainant had prayed for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- whereas in the second complaint before the District Forum, Barasat, the complainant has prayed for a total compensation of Rs.3,32,350/- under different heads as below:-

"a) Refund of Rs.32,350/- already paid.

b) Damage compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.

c) Compensation for medical negligence of Rs.1,00,000/-.

d) Interest as admissible.

e) Any other order or orders as you may deem fit and proper."

In our view, the complainant has not made any substantive changes or modifications in the entire complaint, the enhanced compensation prayed for in the second complaint has no impact on the adjudication before the District Forum (the District Forum shall determine the just and appropriate compensation in adjudication if and when the contingency so arises; the compensation now asked for remains within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a District Forum).

It is pertinent to note that the previous complaint No. 354 of 2014 was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, with the liberty to file before the proper jurisdictional forum. We see no material imperfection (as may cause to require dismissal of the complaint) in the complainant adding / deleting to his complaint including in the prayer clause and filing the instant revived / edited complaint as per his revised articulation and prayer.

This revision petition has been filed within the scope of section 24(b) of the Act, 1986. We do not notice any jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, in the impugned order of the State Commission.

On the basis of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any reason apparent to interfere with the order of the State Commission, it stands affirmed. The revision petition is dismissed.

The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, 24-Parganas (North) on 24.09.2018. The District Forum is directed to proceed further with the complaint as made and presented before it and to expedite the decision on the matter.