IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 24617 OF 2002 Between: E.S.I. CORPORATION, represented by its Regional Director ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Consumer Forum-II represented by its President, Krishna District , Vijayawada and five others. .....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed by the ESI Corporation challenging the order dated 24.9.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II at Vijayawada, stating that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes pertaining to the insured persons covered under the ESI Scheme. Brief facts of the case are that the second respondent- complainant approached the District Forum by way of filing a Consumer Dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act’) against the ESI Corporation alleging deficiencies on their part in rendering treatment properly. The complainant was an employee of M/s Vijaya Spinning Mills Limited, Ganguru and that he was an insured person under the ESI Act attached to the ESI Dispensary at Ganguru under the ESI Local Office Vijayawada. He stated that he had visited the ESI Dispensary on 29.9.1998 for check up and treatment of fever and that he was referred to ESI Hospital, Gundala, Vijayawada for further treatment. He further stated that he was admitted as an inpatient on 30.9.1998 and the disease was diagnosed as “Epididy Moorchits” and on the instruction of the Doctor, a nurse by name Jayabala-5th respondent herein gave saline to him. As the flow was not proper, he had developed acute pain due to abnormal swelling in the right arm. Thereafter, he was referred to a cardiologist and further referred to the NIMS, and further referred to Apollo Hospital, where he was operated upon for terminalisation of fingers and amputation to right thumb. It is also stated that the Doctors are responsible for the misery he had undergone and thus, claimed compensation of Rs. 4,75,000/-. It is also submitted that on receiving the Notice from the District Consumer Forum, the Corporation filed the written statement inter alia, questioning the maintainability of the dispute on the ground that the Forum has no jurisdiction. The District Forum by its order dated 24.9.2002 in C.D.No. 110 of 2000 rejected the said plea of the Corporation holding that it has got the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute filed by the second respondent. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ESI Act is a self-contained provision and the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in KISHORE LAL VS. EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORTION[1]. None appears for the respondents. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record. In the above said judgment, the Apex Court while considering the scope of the ESI Act vis-à-vis the Consumer Protection Act, held at paragraph Nos. 17 and 21 as under: “17. It has been held in numerous cases of this Court that the jurisdiction of a consumer forum has to be construed liberally so as to bring many cases under it for their speedy disposal. In the case of M/s Spring Meadows Hospital and Another v. Harjol Ahluwalia and Another, III (1998) SLT 684= I (1998) CPJ 1 (SC) = AIR 1998 SC 1801, it was held that the CP Act creates a framework for speedy disposal of consumer disputes and an attempt has been made to remove the existing evils of the ordinary Court system. The Act being a beneficial legislation should receive a liberal construction. In Stte of Karnataka v. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-op. Society and others, I (2003) CPJ 1 (SC) =I (2003) SLT 435 = AIR 2003 SC 1043, the Court speaking on the jurisdiction of the consumer fora held that the provisions of the said Act are required to be interpreted as broadly as possible and the fora under the CP Act have jurisdiction to entertain a compliant despite the fact that other fora/Courts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis. These judgments have been cited with approval in paras 16 and 17 of the judgment in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha and others, I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC)=I (2004) SLT 200=(2004) 1 SCC 305. The trend of the decisions of this Court is that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum should not and would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting the consumer forum to take up the matter which falls within the jurisdiction of civil Court or any other forum as established under some enactment. The Court had gone to the extent of saying that if two different fora have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in regard to the same subject, the jurisdiction of the consumer forum would not be barred and the power of the consumer forum to adjudicate upon the dispute could not be negated. 21. Having considered all these aspects, we are of the view that the appellant is a consumer within the ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the medical service rendered in the ESI hospital/dispensary by the respondent Corporation falls within the ambit of Section 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, the consumer forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the case of the appellant. We further hold that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum is not ousted by virtue of Sub-section (1) or (2) or (3) of Section 75 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948.” In view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, we hold that the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the case of the complainant-second respondent herein. Hence, we see no reasons to entertain the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the first respondent-District Consumer Forum is directed to dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Dt. 14.09.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies [1] (2008) CPJ 13 (SC)