advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Ayurveda
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – JURISDICTION- LIMITAION – LOCUS STANDI OF THIRD PARTY TO CONTINUE AFTER THE DEATH OF COMPLAINANT= initially complaint was filed before Delhi Forum and subsequently, complaint was filed before Mumbai Forum. But, both fora had no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Late Ms.Mohsena in her complaint has stated that she had undergone Ayurvedic treatment in the year 2001, at Calicut, Kerala. Further, as per Ms.Mohsena’s case, she did not get desire relief for treatment, hence, she came to Mumbai and had undergone some treatment. Thereafter, she shifted to Delhi for further treatment. The mere fact that Ms. Mohsena after getting her initial treatment at Calicut, got further treatment at Mumbai and Delhi will not give these two fora any territorial jurisdiction. Hence, on this short point alone, consumer complaint ought to have been rejected. 15. The second question for consideration is as to whether petitioner has any locus standi to file the present revision petition. It is an admitted case that it was late Ms.Mohsena, who initially had under gone medical treatment provided by Taj Residency at Calicut. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner is the legal heir of Ms.Mohsena, as per Hindu Succession Act. Moreover, it has nowhere been stated by the petitioner as to when parents of Ms.Mohsena died, nor their death certificates have been filed. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that petitioner is not the legal heir of Ms.Mohsena and as such she does not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as defined in the Act. 16. Next question to be seen is as to whether complaint was filed within the period of limitation. 17. As observed hereinabove, Ms.Mohsena got her initial treatment in Taj Residency, Calicut, in the year 2001. However, complaint was filed only in the year 2008 before the Mumbai forum. Thus, the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation. = Petitioner who was having no locus standi to file the complaint has been pursuing this meritless litigation from day one, just to harass eight respondents out of whom seven are doctors. During last ten years, petitioner has taken the respondents to different consumer fora by filing one petition or the other, just to cause harassment to them. 22. Under these circumstances, present revision petition is liable to be dismissed with punitive cost. Accordingly, we dismiss the present revision petition with punitive cost of Rs.40,000 (Rupees Forty thousand only).
PUBLISHED IN http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130606113118111RP23492011.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2349 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 24.06.2010 in Appeal No. A/10/267 of the State Commission, Maharashtra) Ms. Raika Bandukwalla D/o Abdeali 25, Colaba causeway Mumbai – 400039 ……. Petitioner Versus Dr. Anuradha Nayyar Samaj Ayurvedic Centre 14, Kohinoor Road Dadar East Mumbai – 400014 Dr.G.R. Verma The Arya Vaidya Pharmacy (Cbe) Ltd. 8-A/42, W.E.A. Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005 Ayurvedic Trust & Research … Continue reading
Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, hereinafter referred to as “AYUSH”, to grant permission to the colleges to admit students for the academic year 2011-12, for the BAMS/ Post Graduate courses. = refusal by the Government of India, in its Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, hereinafter referred to as “AYUSH”, to grant permission to the colleges to admit students for the academic year 2011-12, for the BAMS/ Post Graduate courses. Such permission appears to have been refused on account of various deficiencies relating to the infrastructure and teaching staff, which had not been rectified and brought into line with the minimum standard norms.= It is no doubt true, that applications have been filed by a large number of students for admission in the Institutions imparting education in the Indian form of medicine, with the leave of the Court, but it is equally true that such leave was granted without creating any equity in favour of the applicants. Those who chose to file their applications did so at their own risk and it cannot now be contended that since they have been allowed to file their applications pursuant to orders passed by the Court, they had acquired a right to be admitted in the different Institutions to which they had applied. The privilege granted to the candidates cannot now be transformed into a right to be admitted in the course for which they had applied. Apart from anything else, one has to take a practical view of the matter since more than half the term of the first year is over. Though it has been contended on behalf of the Institutions concerned that extra coaching classes would be given to the new entrants, it is practically impossible for a student to pick up the threads of teaching for the entire first year when half the course had been completed. 14. It is not for us to judge as to whether a particular Institution fulfilled the necessary criteria for being eligible to conduct classes in the concerned discipline or not. That is for the experts to judge and according to the experts the Institutions were not geared to conduct classes in respect of the year 2011-12. It is also impractical to consider the proposal of the colleges of providing extra classes to the new entrants to bring them upto the level of those who have completed the major part of the course for the first year. 15. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the orders of the High Court impugned in these Special Leave Petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 31892 OF 2012 Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal & Anr. … Appellants versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents WITH SLP(C) No.33452 of 2012 SLP(C) No.33455 of 2012 SLP(C) No.33560 of 2012 SLP(C) No.34001 of 2012 SLP(C) No.34020 … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 