2. The case is at the stage of arguments which have been heard today in the presence of Syed Haider Ali Bokhari Advocate on behalf of the claimant and Malik Mohammad Afzal Advocate on behalf of the defendant. I have perused the file in the light of the arguments as such I proceed to discuss and dispose off the complaint in accordance with the findings in the following paragraphs.
3. Briefly stated the version of the claimant is to the effect that he was not properly treated medically by the defendant being doctor as patient in addition to the humiliation with threat of ousting from clinic by force. He has demanded the payment of Rs.7,000/- as return of fee and Rs.3 Lakh as damages and Rs.15,000/- as counsel fee and undetermined heavy charges of further medical treatment.
4. The defendants have contested the complaint by filing his written statement in addition to the filing of the application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC and requested for dismissal of the complaint on various grounds including jurisdiction of this court.
5. The application has been contested by the written reply of the petitioner by raising certain preliminary objections and request for dismissal.
6. I have observed from perusal of the copy of the latest law included in the file of the present complaint that immunity is provided in S.29 and bar of jurisdiction is provided in S.30 of "The Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010.
7. The forum for the filing of the complaint is designated u/s S. 4 (7) of the said Act as the Commission with the powers to "undertake investigation into allegations of maladministration, malpractice or failures on the part of a healthcare service provider, or any employee of the healthcare service provider".
8. A healthcare service provider may be held guilty of medical negligence u/s 19; while the procedure of investigation has been provided u/s 23 of the said Act. The aggrieved person is required within sixty days from the knowledge of the cause of action to file a complaint against a healthcare service provider or healthcare establishment by submitting an application in writing supported by an affidavit of the aggrieved person. The Commission has the power to impose fine which may extend to five hundred thousand rupees by keeping in view the gravity of the offence u/s 28(1). If the complaint is proved false, the Commission may impose fine which may extend to two hundred thousand rupees upon the complainant u/s 28(3). It is provided in S.29 that; "No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings related to the provision of healthcare services shall lie against a healthcare service provider except under this Act". It is provided by S.30 that no court other than the court of District and Sessions Judge shall have jurisdiction to question the validity of any action as enumerated in said section. Any person aggrieved by the order of the Commission may prefer an appeal in writing to the District and Sessions Judge u/s 31.
9. The law has therefore become clear that the jurisdiction of this court has been barred by the said Act relating to such cases which have occurred after the pronouncement of the said Act. The present case is alleged to have occurred on 12 12-2011 while the said Act was published in the official gazette after having assent of the Governor on 02-08-2010 as such the present case is within the jurisdiction of the Commission established under the said Act.
10. The complaint is therefore liable to be returned for filing before the competent authority in accordance with law. The ancillary application of the defendant is disposed off accordingly.
11. The file is to be consigned to the record room of this court duly page marked with proper index and after due completion and made available for issuance of attested copies and kept under safe custody till the period fixed for destruction in accordance with the Rules & Orders of Honourable Lahore High Court.