ORDER Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—This order will govern the disposal of R.P. Nos. 96 of 2006, 97 of 2006, 98 of 2006 and 99 of 2006 which arrive out of a common order dated 7.12.2005 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore dismissing revision petitions against the order dated 18.5.2004 of a District Forum whereby applications filed by the petitioners/ opposite parties for dismissing the complaints on ground of Forum having no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaints were dismissed. 2. Submission advanced by Ms. Geetha Luthra for petitioners was that the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is a complete Code and under Section 75(3) thereof the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaints filed by the respective respondents/ complainants. Said Section 75 reads as follows: “Matters to be decided by Employees’ Insurance Court.—(1) If any question or dispute arises as to— (a) whether any person is an employee within the meaning of this Act or whether he is liable to pay the employee’s contribution, or (b) the rate of wages or average daily wages of an employee for the purposes of this Act, or (c) the rate of contribution payable by a principal employer in respect of any employee, or (d) the person who is or was the principal employer in respect of any employees, or (e) the right of any person to any benefit and as to the amount and duration thereof, or (ee) any direction issued by the Corporation under Section 55A on a review of any payment of dependants’ benefit, or (g) any other matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation, or between a principal employer and an immediate employer or between a person and the Corporation or between an employee and a principal or immediate employer, in respect of any contribution or benefit or other dues payable or recoverable under this Act, or any other matter required to be or which may be decided by the Employees’ Insurance Court under this Act, such question or dispute (subject to the provisions of Sb-section (2A) shall be decided by the Employees’ Insurance Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2A), the following claim shall be decided by the Employees’ Insurance Court, namely— (a) claim for the recovery of contributions from the principal employer, (b) claim by a principal employer to recover contributions from any immedite employer; (c) claim against a principal employer under Section 68; (d) claim under Section 70 for the recovery of the value or amount of the benefits received by a person when he is not lawfully entitled thereto; and (e) any claim for the recovery of any benefit admissible under this Act. (2A) If in any proceedings before the Employees’ Insurance Court a disablement question arises and the decision of a Medical Board or a Medical Appeal Tribunal has not been obtained on the same and the decision of such question is necessary for the determination of the claim or question before the Employees’ Insurance Court, that Court shall direct the Corporation to have the question decided by this Act and shall thereafter proceed with the determination of the claim or question before it in accordance with the decision of the Medical Board or the Medical Appeal Tribunal, as the case may be , except where an appeal has been filed before the Employees’ Insurance Court under Sub-section (2) of Section 54 A in which case the Employees’ Insurance Court may itself determine all the issues arising before it. (2B) No matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation in respect of any contribution or any other dues shall be raised by the principal employer in the Employees’ Insurance Court unless he has deposited with the Court fifty per cent of the amount due from him as claimed by the Corporation: Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this Sub-section. (3) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question or dispute as aforesaid or to adjudicate on any liability which by or under this Act is to be decided by a Medical Board, or by a Medical Appeal Tribunal of by the Employees’ Insurance Court.” 3. Copies of complaints of all the four cases are placed on the files. Copies of complaints of all the four cases are placed on the files. Sita Rammaiya, respondent in R.P. No. 96 of 2006 filed complaint, inter alia, alleging that he was working as a security guard with Rock Security Services, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore which is registered under Employees State Insurance Act. He was entitled to avail facility of ESI Hospital. He went to ESI Hospital, Rajajinagar for eye check-up on 7.10.2003 due to blur eye sight. After clinical examination, he was informed that he has developed cataract in right eye and will have to undergo operation therefor. On 8.10.2003, respondent No. 3 conducted operation and discharged him on 9.10.2003. In the same evening, he developed severe pain in the operated eye and was again taken to the respondents on 10.10.2003. After check up, he was told that puss has been formed and infection caused in the operated eye and he was referred to Minto Hospital for further treatment. There he was informed by Dr. Hemant Murthy that his right eye will have to be removed as eye sight had been completely lost. Puss formation and post operative infection caused was severe in nature and could not be cured by any medicine. His right eye was, therefore, removed on 23.10.2003. Alleging negligence and deficiency in service, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000 was claimed by way of complaint, Rs. 7,500 towards medical expenses besides cost. Respondents in remaining revision petitions who lost their eyes because of alleged negligence on part of doctors in performing surgeries also, filed separate complaints on somewhat similar allegations seeking compensation and medical expenses against the petitioners. To be only noted that the main claim for compensation, as made by the respondents does not fall in any of the categories enumerated in said Section 75. Therefore, jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain and decide the complaints is not ousted under Section 75(3). State Commission without examining the order of District Forum on merit dismissed the revision petitions observing that in the event of District Forum passing an order adverse to the petitioners, it will be open to them to challenge the order also urging the grounds taken in revision petitions. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in aforesaid order dated 18.5.2004 of the District Forum warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 4. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in aforesaid order dated 18.5.2004 of the District Forum warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 4. Accordingly, aforementioned revision petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000 to each of the respondents. Revision Petitions dismissed. –