JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated December 20, 2019, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an Interlocutory Application No. IA/199/2019 arising out of Complaint Case No. CC/697/2018. By the order impugned, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter referred to as the said Act) was rejected. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order suffers from perversity and error apparent on the face of record and this Court should invoke the general power of superintendence and interfere with the same. The petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the petition of complaint in order to show that the compensation claimed was not computed or quantified. That amount spent by the complainant in other hospitals was also claimed in the proceeding against the petitioner as also two doctors attending the complainant in the petitioner/hospital. 3. The petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the application under Section 26 in order to drive home the fact that not only did the petitioner take a plea that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which was purposely overvalued in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission but the complainant also alleged that the petition of complaint was frivolous and vexatious. 4. According to the petitioner, this Court could assume jurisdiction to interfere with the order impugned as the order impugned was arbitrary, perverse and not based on material available on record. Reference was made in this regard to the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Achutananda Baidya vs. Prafullya Kumar Gayen & ors., reported in (1997) 5 SCC 76 . 5. I have considered the order impugned. It appears that the tribunal has recorded the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner justifying the dismissal of the case in limine and has arrived at a conclusion that the valuation of a suit would depend ordinarily on the reliefs claimed therein and the application under Section 26 of the said Act was not maintainable on the sole ground that the petition of complaint was grossly overvalued. The tribunal came to a conclusion that in order to ascertain whether the complaint was overvalued or not, the proceeding should continue and could not be dismissed at the threshold. The tribunal came to a conclusion that in order to ascertain whether the complaint was overvalued or not, the proceeding should continue and could not be dismissed at the threshold. The tribunal did not accept the contention of the petitioner that the jurisdiction of the tribunal under Section 26 of the said Act could be invoked at the very initial stage, inasmuch as, the pleadings and allegations in the petition of complaint were sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the application was not frivolous or vexatious. The tribunal further came to the conclusion that overvaluation of the complaint or a proceeding would not render the complaint to be dismissed in limine . The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the petition of complaint and submits that the averments made therein would not justify the quantum of compensation claimed by the complainant in the prayers. He further draws the attention of the Court to the pleadings and prayers to impress upon the Court that claims against the CMRI and Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals could not be made against the petitioner/hospital. 6. Although the power of judicial review of the High Court is a basic feature of the Constitution, yet in this case when the learned tribunal has applied its mind to the petition of complaint, the contentions of the petitioner and has also assigned reasons as to why the petition of complaint could not be thrown out at the threshold in exercise of power under Section 26 of the said Act, I refrain from interfering with the order impugned solely on the ground that a decision rendered on consideration of the merits and submissions of the parties and upon assigning independent reasons would not be covered by such an exception where power of judicial review was to be invoked. This is not a case of erroneous assumption of jurisdiction or acting beyond jurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction or error apparent on the record or patent error in procedure. It is also not a case where the order impugned can be rejected as being perverse, not being based on materials. 7. For convenience, Section 26 of the said Act is quoted below: '26. It is also not a case where the order impugned can be rejected as being perverse, not being based on materials. 7. For convenience, Section 26 of the said Act is quoted below: '26. Dismissal of frivolous or vexatious complaints Where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may be specified in the order.' 8. The learned Commission upon perusal of the petition of complaint, came to a conclusion that there was enough material in the petition of complaint which did not appear to be frivolous or vexatious and, as such, the petition of complaint could not be rejected in limine . 9. I do not find there is any perversity in the order impugned. This is not a case where the tribunal has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested upon it by law. Moreover, the points raised by the petitioner will always be available to the petitioner at the trial. The issues as to whether the compensation claimed was rightly quantified or not or at all quantified, whether the petition of complaint has been overvalued or not, and whether the amounts paid by the complainant for her treatment at hospitals other than the petitioner/hospital as claimed could be granted or not, are questions to be determined at the trial and the petitioner will always be at liberty to urge these points at the trial. These issues will have to be decided by the said learned Commission at the stage of trial while considering the case of the petitioner. 10. Thus, at this stage I do not find any perversity in the order. I also do not find that the learned Commission has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or has erroneously exercised jurisdiction. Thus, this revisional application is dismissed. 11. The observations made herein are not on the merits of the case and the learned Commission will proceed in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible subject to compliance of all usual formalities.