Facts:
Appellant is the owner of bus bearing Registration No. WB-57/6715. Appellant had taken an Insurance Policy Cover from Respondent Insurance Company with respect to the bus, for the period between 13.1.2003 to 12.1.2004.

On the intervening night of 4/5.07.2003 on National Highway No. 34 while the said Bus was proceeding to Hilli from Puri, it dashed against a Neem tree and turned turtle. The bus was massively damaged on impact and then slid into a roadside ditch. Thus, not only the body of bus but its internal systems also suffered extensive damage. The passengers travelling therein were also injured.

The Appellant had promptly informed the Respondent Insurance Company about the said accident and the consequent damage caused to the bus. Accordingly, then requested for assessment of loss sustained including cost of repairs. The Respondent duly appointed Surveyor, who submitted a detailed Final Report dated 31.12.2003 and as per his investigation, the total amount of damages was computed to be Rs. 2,72,517.90.

According to Appellant, the amount assessed by Surveyor was far less than the actual amount spent by her in getting the said bus roadworthy. As per Appellant, the bills and receipts showing payments and requested Respondent to pay the total sum of Rs. 5,33,782/- but the Respondent failed to pay the said amount despite repeated demands.

Thus, the Appellant was constrained to file a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short `the Act') before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. On notice being issued to the Respondent, it filed written statement denying all material allegations of the Appellant. It submitted that Appellant have been fabricated only with an intention to claim an unreasonably large amount from the Respondent. Apart from the above, it also took a plea that at the time of accident, the bus was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence.

Thus, the bone of contention before the District Forum was whether at the relevant point of time, driver of the bus was holding a valid driving licence or not. Considering the matter from all angles the District Forum was pleased to allow the complaint of the Appellant and directed the Respondent to pay to the Appellant a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- together with an interest at the rate of 9%, if the payment was not made within two months from the date of the said order.

This order was subject matter of challenge before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Act. The State Commission also perused the matter in due detail and agreed with the findings that at the relevant point of time bus as being driven by a person holding a valid driving licence. However, it came to the conclusion that Appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,72,517/- only.

Against the aforesaid orders of District Forum and State Commission, Respondent preferred a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Act, before the National Commission. National Commission after considering the matter came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus at the relevant point of time was not holding a valid driving licence.

Accordingly, it allowed the plea of the Respondent and thereby set aside and quashed the orders passed by District Forum and State Commission. Now the matter is before the Apex Court of India

Supreme Court Observation
In the appeal the sole ground to be examined by us is whether at the relevant point of time driver was having a valid driving licence or not. We have once again critically gone through the evidence produced by the parties, and the statements made by the authorized officer of the RTO and other material documents filed by the parties. In the light of the admission of the witness, who had appeared with the relevant records from the office of RTO, we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that at the relevant point of time driver was having a valid driving licence.

Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.

The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed.

It is correct that the Act does not contain any provision for grant of interest, but on account of catena of cases of this Court that interest can still be awarded, taking recourse to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to do complete justice between the parties. We accordingly do so. This principle is based upon justice, equity and good conscience, which would certainly authorize us to grant interest, otherwise, the very purpose of awarding compensation to the Appellant would be defeated interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing the complaint till it is actually paid.

The order of National Commission is set aside and quashed. We accordingly, hold that Respondent is liable to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,72,517/- to the Appellant together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the application till it is actually paid.

Cases where Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 Scc 269 followed:

1. Momna Gauri v. Scooter India Ltd., (2014) 13 SCC 307, J2
   Facts:
   The appellant, who is a physically challenged person, purchased a Vikram 750 Delux three wheeler auto from Nawal Auto Sales, Morena (respondent No. 3) by availing loan of Rs.1,95,000/-. When the vehicle was serviced by the dealer, i.e., respondent No. 3, the appellant noticed cracks in the chassis. She brought this to the notice of respondent No. 3 and demanded replacement of the vehicle with new one. However, instead of making available new vehicle, respondent No. 3 got the cracks repaired and returned the vehicle to the appellant. After some time, the chassis of the three wheeler again broke. This time, the dealer neither carried out the repairs nor replaced the vehicle.
   
   The appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prayed for issue of a direction to the dealer and the manufacturer to replace the vehicle. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that the chassis cracked because of overloading and they were not liable to replace the vehicle. The District Forum considered the rival pleadings and the documents produced by the parties and held that the vehicle purchased by the appellant had a manufacturing defect and that was the reason why the chassis had broken more than once.
   
   The District Forum noticed the plea of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the cracks had developed in the chassis because of overloading and rejected the same by observing that no tangible evidence was produced to substantiate this assertion.
   
   Thereafter the Respondents filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission by recording its agreement with the District Forum on the issue of deficiency in service. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent filed appeal in the National Commission where the said forum modified the direction given by the District Forum and held that there is not doubt that the chassis of the brand new three wheeler motor vehicle broke down within a short period. Whether this was due to the alleged over-loading could not be clearly established by the petitioners merely on the strength of the challans of fines under the M.V. Act, produced by them.
   
   Supreme Court Observation:
   Section 21 of the Act (which is now numbered as Section 58 as per 2019 Amendment Act), which relates to the jurisdiction of the National Commission reads as under: Jurisdiction of the National Commission. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction
   
   1. to entertain:
      
      1. complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore; and
      2. appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and
   2. to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
   The aforesaid provision was interpreted by this Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2011(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 591 : 2011(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 250 : (2011) 11 SCC 269 and it was observed:
   "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside.
   
   In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked."
   
   In the present case, the National Commission did not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the finding recorded by the District Forum on the issue of deficiency in services. The National Commission also did not find any fault with the conclusion recorded by the District Forum that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle sold to the Appellant. Therefore, it must be held that by interfering with the order of the District Forum, the National Commission transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Act.
   
   In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order is set aside and those passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are restored. The respondents are directed to implement the order of the District forum within a period of two months from today.
    
2. Rameshwar Lal Sharma v. Director, Kothari Hospital, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 129, (D 1)
   Facts:
   Case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner/Complainant's wife was admitted in the Respondent Hospital on 12.12.2010 as her great toe and 2nd & 3rd toes of the right foot were infected with gangrene. The Complainant states that the portion between the knee and heel of her right foot was in normal condition and not infected with gangrene. The great toe and the 2nd & 3rd toe were amputated and she was administered antibiotics. Later, as gangrene spread above the heel, her right foot was amputated. Alleging medical negligence, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.
   
   The Respondents/Opposite Parties contested the case that there was no medical negligence in the case. The patient's great tow and 2nd and 3rd toes were infected with gangrene and were, therefore, amputated. For the portion above the heel antibiotic treatment was started, apart from other procedures.
   
   The District Forum dismissed the Complaint on the basis of Medical Board report. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, an Appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the District Forum had not erred in relying upon the Medical Board report. The Appellant/Complainant could not submit any proof to the contrary. Therefore, the Appeal was dismissed.
   
   Against the concurrent findings, the Petitioner has filed the Revision Petition before National Commission.
   
   National Commission Observation:
   Jurisdiction of National Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. The Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice.
   
   The Petitioner appeared in person and was heard at length. Also carefully perused the record. Both the Fora below have dismissed the Complaint. The State Commission held that the District Forum was justified in passing the impugned order and dismissed the Appeal on contest.
   
   The District Forum rightly relied upon the report of the Medical Board duly consisting of a Surgeon, Medical jurist and Physician. The Medical Board examined the treatment documents of the Complainant's wife. She was admitted on 12.12.2010 with diabetic foot (right) and anaemia and discharged on 24.12.2010.
   
   She was suffering from long standing infection of the right foot due to diabetes. Since gangrene had developed on the great toe, 2nd & 3rd toes, the same were removed. On discharge she was advised medication after ensuring that her parameters were within limits and blood sugar was under control. Later she was admitted to S.K. Soni Hospital on 25.12.2010 and discharged on 02.01.2011.
   
   The Medical Board held that there was no negligence in the conduct of surgery for removal of the toes, which were infected with gangrene and incision and drainage of the soft tissue infection above the heel was also justified as per surgical norms. Initially amputation above the heel was not justified as it was not gangrenous. The Respondent took the first line of treatment with incision and drainage of the soft tissue and administrating antibiotics.
   
   She was given proper treatment and there was no negligence on the part of the treating Surgeon. Every possible measure was taken to save her limb from higher level amputation, for which deficiency of service/negligence cannot be attributed to the Respondents.
    
3. G. Radha v. Janaki, 2022 SCC OnLine NCDRC 348 (J 2)
   Facts:
   The facts in brief are that the Complainant, a house wife, Ms. G. Radha, about 47 years of age, underwent hysterectomy operation at Chaitanya Hospital ('OP-2'). It was performed by Dr. Janaki ( 'OP-1') on 30.06.2009. It was alleged that the OP-1 performed hysterectomy operation without informed consent. The consent was pre-printed and it amounts to unfair trade practice as held in the judgment of this Commission in C.C.428/2018—Vinod Khanna Vs. R.G. Stone Urology, decided on 06.07.2020.
   
   In the midnight of the operated day, the patient was suddenly taken to Gandhi Hospital without explaining the condition of the patient. Thus, it was a case of res ipsa loquitur. The Complainant further alleged that the expert opinion was also not as per standard guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Being aggrieved, she filed a complaint before the District Forum, Ranga Reddy.
   
   The District Forum, on hearing the parties and considering the averments, dismissed the Complaint. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed First Appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.
   
   National Commission Observations
   We have perused the material on record. On 30.06.2009, the medical record also revealed that Dr. V. Janaki (OP-1) performed the surgery at Chaitanya Hospital. Post-operatively, during the intervening night of 30.06.2009 and 01.07.2009, the patient complained of pain in right chest and shortness of breath. She immediately attended the patient and confirmed as clear symptoms of air embolism i.e. rare complication during post-operative period.
   
   The patient was immediately shifted to Gandhi Hospital and the OP-1 herself accompanied in the ambulance. Therefore, in National Commission view, it was correct decision and a proper duty of care, thus not negligence. The expert opinion, dated 17.06.2010 of Dr. P. Padmaja, Superintendent, Govt. Maternity Hospital, Hyderabad confirmed no medical negligence in the instant case.
   
   In the instant case, there are concurrent findings of fact and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), National Commission find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may necessitate interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction from this Commission. We would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.'1.
   
   Similarly, in the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India', it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under:
   "It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
   
   In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. ….."
   
   Thus the Revision Petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Relevant Information from Book titled:
"Medical Proffesion & The Consumer Protection Act" by Anil Aggarwal and Dr. A.P. Chaudhari

1. Appeal:
   
   1. Appeal to the National Commission: According to Sec 19 of the Act any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its power conferred may prefer an appeal against each such order within thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
       
   2. Appeal to the Supreme Court: Any person aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission in exercise of its power may prefer an appeal against such order to the SC within a period of thirty days from the date of the Order.
       
2. Jurisdiction and Power
   Introductory:
   The Jurisdiction has reference to the exercise of powers and the extent and a limit within which such powers are exercisable for the administration of justice. But jurisdiction is defined in term of Powers. It is the power of the court to hear and determine a cause, to adjudicate and to exercise any judicial powers in relation to it and to award remedies provided by a law upon a state of facts.
   
   The concept of jurisdiction embraces the power to grant the remedies provided by law. Hence the question of jurisdiction is most relevant and important because any proceeding before fora if beyond the scope of jurisdiction the same is not maintainable and even if any order or direction is passed the same becomes nullity.