1. Mr. Ganesh Shrivastava, learned Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 and files his Vakalatnama in Court today. Let it be kept on record.

2. Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S.N Mukherjee appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Sabyasachi Sen and the learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1, Mr. Ganesh Shrivastava. Considered the materials on record.

3. By this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a doctor, challenged the Order No. 15, dated 14th December, 1995, passed by the President and a Member of the District Redressal Forum, North 24-Parganas, Barasat, in D.F.C Case No. 90 of 1994, whereby the learned Forum allowed the petition of the petitioner in that proceeding for restoration by restoring the proceeding to its original file and number after the matter was contested by the opposite party therein.

4. The fact, briefly stated, is that the opposite party No. 1 herein was a patient of the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein performed an operation of dichotomy on her and it is alleged that due to rash and negligence of the doctor in such operation the doctor perforated urinary bladder of the opposite party No. 1 herein, which ultimately forced her to be treated by another doctor and to undergo a further operation. On this fact the opposite party No. 1 herein filed a petition of complaint for compensation before the District Redressal Forum, Barasat, and a proceeding started thereon being D.F.C Case No. 90 of 1994, as mentioned earlier. The matter reached the stage of evidence and the date was fixed for that on 3rd August, 1995. The case was dismissed for default as the petitioner therein could not appear before the Forum along-with her Advocate and the plea was taken that due to torrential rain in course of that day she could not come to the Forum along with her Advocate on time as their car was stranded due to water-logging and as such she was prevented from arriving at the Forum during the time of hearing. But immediately thereafter she appeared before the. Forum and prayed for fixation of a date for hearing and for taking evidence after condoning the delay. That petition was treated as a petition for restoration and/or recalling the order being Order No. 11 dated 3-8-95. The matter regarding restoration was decided on merit after going into the evidence of the parties. It will be apposite to mention here that only the complainant laid evidence and the opposite party did not adduce any evidence. Be that as it may, by the order impugned the Forum after allowing the petition for restoration actually restored the proceeding being D.F.C Case No. 90 of 1994. That is the subject-matter of this present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. A point arose as to whether this Court shall interfere with such an order in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the petitioner contended, inter alia, that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the order of the District Redressal Forum has been challenged and in support of his contention Mr. Moorkerjee relied on some decisions of this Court and the Apex Court to wit, Shrimati Saswati Mehrotra (nee Mukhopadhyay) v. State of West Bengal, reported in (1994) 1 Cal HN 167; Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1993 Cal 4; ANZ Grindlays Bank v. President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, reported in (1995) 1 Cal HN 214 : (AIR 1995 Cal 104); United Bank Of India v. Hirak Mukherjee & Ors., reported in (1995) 1 Cal HN 501; and Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta, reported in AIR 1961 SC 372 at page 380.

7. Mr. Shrivastava on the other hand contended on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a complete Code providing complete relief and as such the alternative remedy under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is a bar. He further contended that the Act itself provides for revision and as such a revision before this Court without availing of the power of revision of the Forum is not permitted and the Court shall not entertain the application of the petitioner herein for seeking her relief.

8. Heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties and considered the materials on record.

9. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or any service provided may be filed with a District Forum by—

(a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or such service provided;

(b) any recognised consumer association, whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or service provided is a member of such association or not; or

(c) the Central or the State Government.

An explanation to that Section has been appended, which runs as follows:—

“For the purpose of this Section “recognised consumer association” means any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law for the time being in force.”

10. Reference to this Section is necessary for the purpose of understanding the decision in the case of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (AIR 1993 Cal 4) (supra). The fact in that case as was quoted in that decision is a complaint to the effect that construction of pay and use toilets in the public park named after Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose would cause disrespect to the memory of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose or would hurt religious sentiments of persons visiting nearby religious institution or would contaminate the milk sold from nearby milk booth does not constitute a ‘complaint’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) and the complaintant, a member of general public would not be a ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(d). Accordingly, that Court held that the District Forum as such had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This decision, in my view, has got no bearing on this case as it has not been argued by Mr. Mookerjee that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the original application of the petitioner. Mr. Mookerjee candidly submitted that after the Supreme Court decision the doctors also come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Mr. Mookerjee also relied on the decision of Srimati Mehrotra (nee Mukhopadyay) (1994 (1) Cal HN 167) (supra) for the purpose of showing that there is no complete bar under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge an order before any District Forum. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inter alia, provides power of appeal against an order passed by the District Forum and Sec. 17(b) provides the power of the State Commission for revision. The power of revision that has been given in clause (b) of Section 17 is much wider than the power as has been given under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of United Bank of India (1995 (1) Cal HN 501) (supra) has held that where there is an equally efficacious nay, a wider alternative remedy and unless the grievances raised in the revisional application come within the ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should not entertain the revisional application and should relegate the matter to the appellate Forum. In the instant case, the order that has been passed can be challenged either in appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, or in revision under clause (b) of Section 17 of the said Act, which power of revision is much wider than the power that has been given under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That apart, the order that has been passed does not come within the purview of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenge and as such I find no militancy in the judgment of Srimati Saswati Mehrotra (nee Mukhopadhyay) (1994 (1) Cal HN 167) (supra) and the judgment in the United Bank of India (1995 (1) Cal HN 501) (supra). A single Bench of this Court in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank (AIR 1995 Cal 104) (supra) has held in paragraph 12 at page 219 that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a complete Code in itself and the Act is also beneficient statute enacted for the purpose of giving speedy relief to the consumers. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, the Forums are required to dispose of a complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of the receipt thereof. I have already pointed out that it has not been contended — before me by Mr. Mookerjee that the Forum lacks inherent jurisdiction to dispose of the matter. What has been contended before me is that once the Forum has dismissed a proceeding, it has got no power to restore the same. In other words, the question of jurisdiction that has been contended before me can be decided by a superior Tribunal as contemplated in that Act, being the State Commission, either in appeal under Section 15 or in revision under sub-clause (b) of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, where a wider power has been given than the power that has been given under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When the Code, meaning the Consumer Protection Act, provides a complete relief, unless in a very exceptional case, the Court should not interfere in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for the redressal of grievance against any order passed by the Forum, this power is to be exercised very sparingly. This is not a case which warrants exercise of such power.

11. Mr. Mookerjee also relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (AIR 1961 SC 372) (supra). That is a decision under the Income-tax Act, 1922, and a new Income-tax Act came into force in 1961 and under that Act the power of the High Court has been curtailed to go into the question of deciding the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, unless the matter is being referred to by the Tribunal before this Court. And in such view of the matter, I find that the decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (supra) has a little bearing on this case. As I have already pointed out that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides provision for complete relief and as the fact of this case does not warrant exercise of the power by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I find no merit in this case and I, accordingly, dismiss the revisional application.

12. There will be no order as to costs.

Application dismissed.