JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) By this order, I propose to dispose of the above noted revision petitions, one filed by complainant Anjali Moitra and other filed by opposite party Kothari Medical Centre against the impugned order of the State Commission dated 30.11.2012. 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the disposal of above noted revision petitions are that complainant Anjali Moitra filed a consumer complaint before Kolkata District Forum, Unit-I alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties M/s Kothari Medical Centre and Dr. Raj Kumar Chajjer. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties as also the evidence on record allowed the complaint against Kothari Medical Centre / opposite party no.2 and directed the medical centre to pay compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-. No order against opposite party no.1 i.e. Raj Kumar Chhajer was passed. 3. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, Opposite Party No.2 Kothari Medical Centre approached the State Commission. In the memo of appeal, apart from the ground of challenge on merits, OP No.2 raised the issue of locus standi of Anjali Moitra to maintain the consumer complaint before the District Forum. The State Commission while agreeing with the findings of the District Forum on merits, however, modified the order of the District Forum by reducing the quantum of compensation to Rs.10,00 lakhs. 4. Anjali Moitra, being aggrieved of reduction of compensation from Rs.15.00 lakhs to Rs.10.00 lakhs has preferred the revision petition No. 77 of 2013 seeking enhancement of compensation whereas M/s Kothari Medical Centre being aggrieved of the impugned order has preferred Revision Petition No. 227 of 2013 seeking dismissal of the complaint. 5. Learned Shri N R Mukherjee, Advocate for Kothari Medical Centre has challenged the impugned order both on facts and law. He has argued at length. I am referring to arguments of learned counsel for Kothari Medical Centre on merits because this revision petition can be disposed of on the legal issue of maintainability due to lack of locus standi. Learned counsel has contended that impugned order of the foras below are without jurisdiction because Anjali Moitra who filed the consumer complaint is not covered under the definition of consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and she could not have filed the complaint on behalf of her husband without a proper authorization or Power of Attorney in her favour. Learned counsel has contended that State Commission while disallowing plea of locus standi has misinterpreted the judgment of the Supreme Court which is based on entirely distinct facts. 6. Learned Mr.Uday Jha, counsel for the complainant has argued in support of the impugned order. He has contended that State Commission has rightly relied the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia [(1998) 4 SCC 39]. It is contended that in the instant case, it was the complainant who hired the services of the opposite parties. Therefore, in view of section 2 (d) (ii), the complainant is covered under the definition of consumer. It is further contended that otherwise also, the complainant being wife of the victim had throughout suffered alongwith him because of his ailing condition. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. Section 2 (1) (b) defines the term complainant as under: (b) "complainant" means— (i) a consumer; or (ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1of 1956)or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) the Central Government or any State Government, (iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest; (v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a complaint”. 8. On reading of the above, it is clear that in order to succeed on issue of locus standi, Ms. Anjali Moitra is firstly required to establish that she is a complainant being consumer. Section 2 (1) (d) defines the term ‘consumer’ as under: (d) "consumer" means any person who— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.” (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes; Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.” 9. On reading of the above definition of consumer, it is clear that in order to qualify as a consumer within the four corners of the above definition, Ms. Anjali Moitra is required to establish that she hired or availed of any service from the opposite party for consideration. No evidence in this regard has been led. Instead on perusal of complaint we find that Anjali Moitra has described herself as a mere housewife and there is no allegation whatsoever in the complaint that she actually hired the services of Kothari Medical Centre for treatment of her husband. The opposite party has placed on record affidavit evidence on behalf of the complainant. On perusal of the affidavit, we find that instead of adducing any evidence on affidavit, complainant had averred that she is not interested to file separate affidavit of evidence and prayed that petition of complaint and affidavit filed in response to the complaint may be treated as her affidavit. 10. I have perused the affidavit filed alongwith the complaint. This affidavit nowhere state that services of the opposite party were hired by the complainant. That being the case, in my considered view, M/s Anjali Moitra is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. 11. Section 2 (c ) of the Act defines ‘complaint’ as any allegation in writing made by complainant raising consumer dispute. As Anjali Moitra is not a complainant, she is not covered under the definition of consumer, as such, petition filed by her before the District Forum cannot be treated as consumer complaint. Thus, in my considered view, the District Forum has committed a grave error in entertaining the petitioner filed by Anjali Moitra. The State Commission has committed a jurisdictional error by rejecting the plea of the opposite party regarding maintainability of the consumer complaint on the ground of locus standi. 12. The judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Spring Meadows (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case for the reason that the said case relates to the consumer complaint filed by the parents of a minor child. In the instant case, husband of Anjali Moitra is still alive and he being major cannot be substituted by a third person as complainant unless there is power of attorney / prior authorization given by person concerned. In view of the fact that complaint itself is not maintainable on the ground of locus standi, no purpose shall be served by going into the merits of the case. 13. Looking at a problem from different angle. Supposing this consumer complaint is dismissed for any reason, the question would be whether Mr. Ajoy Kumar Moitra would be bound by this judgment? Answer to this question is in the negative because order passed in absence of Mr.Ajay Moitra will not operate as res judicata against him and such an order would amount to violation of natural justice. 14. In view of the above, there is merit in the revision petition No. 227/2013 filed by opposite party Kothari Medical Centre. The impugned orders of the State Commission as also the District Forum are without jurisdiction as the complainant did not have locus standi to file the complaint. Revision petition No. 227 of 2013 is, therefore, allowed, orders of the foras below are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. 15. Consequently revision petition filed by complainant Anjali Moitra being Revision Petition No. 77 of 2013 seeking enhancement of compensation is dismissed. This order, however, shall not come in the way of husband of the petitioner to seek legal remedy available to him in accordance with law. 15. The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited by opposite party Kothari Medical Centre pursuant to the order of National Commission as a pre-condition to stay of the execution, be released to the opposite party Kothari Medical Centre alongwith accrued interest , if any. | 
