Kerala High Court
Philips India Limited vs Dr. Rani B Chittoor on 12 April, 2023
OP(C) NO. 938 OF 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 938 OF 2023
AGAINST I.A 47/2023 IN CC 313/2020 OF DISTRICT CONSUMER
REDRESSAL FORUM, MANJERI
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1,3,4 & 9:
1 PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, TOWER-A,
DLF IT PARK, NEW TOWN (RAJARHAT), KOLKATA - 700156,
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER JOSEPH SEBASTIAN,
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O SEBASTIAN, KRISHNA KRIPA HOUSE,
XL/215A, LAYAM ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682011
2 PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT UNIT NO.402, 4TH
FLOOR, WORLDMARK 3, WORLMARK, GURUGRAM, SECTOR 65 -
122018, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER JOSEPH
SEBASTIAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O SEBASTIAN, KRISHNA
KRIPA HOUSE, XL/215A, LAYAM ROAD, COCHIN, PIN -
682011
3 PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED
SURVEY NO.523/3E2.3F.30. 3M.4A.4B, 5241B.2BM. 3A2.
DOOR NO. 116, CHENNAI- 600067, REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY MANAGER JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O
SEBASTIAN, KRISHNA KRIPA HOUSE, XL/215A, LAYAM
ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682011
4 PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED
SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, WESTERN BLOCK,
MUNICIPAL DOOR NO. 8/17, SHAFEE MOHAMMED ROAD,
RUTLAND GATE, CHENNAI - 600006, REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY MANAGER JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O
SEBASTIAN, KRISHNA KRIPA HOUSE, XL/215A, LAYAM
ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682011
BY ADVS.
RAJIT
ARJUN S.
OP(C) NO. 938 OF 2023
2
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & RESPONDENTS 2,5,6, 7 &
8:
1 DR. RANI B CHITTOOR
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
SHIVAKRUPA GENETIC CLINIC, PARACKAL HOUSE, VENGARA
P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 676304
2 ROHIT SATHE
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
PRESIDENT- PHILIP HEALTH SYSTEMS- PHILIPS INDIA
LTD, 3RD FLOOR, TOWER-A, DLF IT PARK, NEW TOWN
(RAJARHAT), KOLKATA, PIN - 700156
3 HEALTH CARE INDIA
19/ 1187-V, 2ND FLOOR, DEVIKA BUILDING, CHALAPPURAM
P.O, CALICUT, PIN - 673002
4 NIDHIN P.N
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
8/17, III FLOOR, SUNNY SIDE, SHAFEE MOHAMMED ROAD,
RUTLAND GATE, 2ND STREET, CHENNAI, PIN - 600006
5 SREEKUMARI
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
8/17, III FLOOR, SUNNY SIDE, SHAFEE MOHAMMED ROAD,
RUTLAND GATE, 2ND STREET, CHENNAI, PIN - 600006
6 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT.LTD
20/F, TOWER A, PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK, LOWER
PAREL, MUMBAI, PIN - 400013
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 938 OF 2023
3
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed in I.A No.47/2023
in C.C No.313/2020 by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Malappuram (in short
'Commission'), the opposite parties 1,3,4 and 9 in the
complaint have filed the original petition. The
respondents are the complainant and the opposite
parties 2,5,6,7 & 8 in the complaint.
2. The relevant facts leading to Ext.P4 order are:
(i) The first respondent has filed Ext.P1 complaint
before the Commission, against the petitioners and
respondents 2 to 6, to realise an amount of Rs.35,70,600/-
as compensation.
(ii) The petitioners defence is that the complaint is
not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act,
2019 (in short 'Act'). Therefore, they filed Ext.P3
OP(C) NO. 938 OF 2023
application to consider the question of maintainability of
the complaint as a preliminary issue. But the
Commission, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, has rejected
the application and has held that the question is a matter
of evidence.
(iii) Ext.P4 is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in
law. Hence the original petition.
3. Heard; Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, on admission.
4. In Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory
[2012 (8) SCC 524], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the Consumer Protection Act is a self contained
Code and the High Courts shall not entertain writ
petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, challenging orders passed under the Act, in view
of the alternative statutory remedy available under the
Act.
5. Furthermore, in Om Prakash Saini v. DCM
OP(C) NO. 938 OF 2023
Ltd and others [(2010) 11 SCC 622], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has succinctly held that in view of the
alternative remedy available to an aggrieved person
under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
the High Courts shall not interfere with orders passed
under the Act, in exercise of its power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
6. In the light of the emphatic declaration of law in
the aforecited decisions, I am not inclined to entertain
the original petition and interfere with Ext.P4 order
passed by the Commission.
Resultantly, without prejudice to the right of the
petitioners to work out their remedies, in accordance
with law, the original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
ma/12.4.2023 JUDGE
OP(C) NO. 938 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 938/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT CC.NO.313/2020
OF THE HON'BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION- MALAPPURAM DATED
02.12.2020
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF VERSION OF THE PETITIONERS
HEREIN IN CC.NO.313/2020 OF THE HON'BLE
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION- MALAPPURAM DATED 30.03.2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 09.12.2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION- MALAPPURAM IN I.A.NO.47/2023
IN C.C.NO.313/2020 DTD 15.02.2023
