CC No. 235/2020
Date:- 21/02/2023
Present:- Sh. Pranesh Kumar Advocate for Complainant
Arguments heard. The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that he was married to Ms. Neha Jain in January 2018 and in the month of October 2018 when she was at the final stage of pregnancy, she was admitted in the hospital i.e. OP1 where she was not treated well on medical lines and OP2 did not tell about the complications regarding the delivery to the complainant or to any other family member of the wife, but at 4:00 A.M. on 10.11.2018 the nurse in the hospital of OP1 told that the heart-beat of child in the womb is not normal and OP2 had not been providing any service by that time and at 10:40 A.M. same day, the wife of the complainant gave birth to dead child.
He lodged Police Complaint against the OP1 & OP2, but OP1 & OP2 managed the I.O. namely Sh. Amarchand Sharma, & the complainant was not even allowed to see the child. He then leveled various allegations against the doctors who did not accommodate his request for the DNA Test of dead child in order to ascertain paternity of the child. The documents sought by the complainant w.r.t. the medical prescription and discharge summary etc were also refused to be given and so many allegation have been leveled by the complainant against doctors again, and also against I.O; against his wife & in-laws & and ultimately it is stated that feeling aggrieved of such conduct of the OP1 & OP2, he filed the present complaint against the OPs interalia stating that compensation of Rs.1 crore be given to him for deficiency of service by the OPs.
Heard.
In the entire complaint, the complainant has alleged so many facts w.r.t. the allegations against hospital, allegations against Police, allegations against his in-laws & even against his own wife who as per the documents filed by the complainant himself was living separately from him. He is also having doubt on the paternity of the child, and he also alleged that the hospital has not provided documents to him. Even some documents filed by him show that there is dispute between wife and himself w.r.t. giving consent to the hospital for C-Section/Operation(Cesarean). All such issues are quite complicated question of facts. However the Commission is not adverting to the same at this stage and first of all the Commission has to advert to the aspect as to whatever this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint i.e. as to whether the complainant is ‘consumer’ of OP1 & OP2. The word ‘Consumer’ has been defined u/s 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 read as follows:-
Section (2)
(7) "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, or.........
Where consumer as defined is merely, so Section 2 read was
(7) (ii) hires or avails of any service 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 service 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 service for any commercial purpose.
In the entire complaint it is no where mentioned as to how the complainant is a ‘consumer’ and how the OP1 & OP2 are service provider for him, as he, nowhere has mentioned as to whether any consideration has been paid by him to the OP1 & OP2 for availing their services. There is no such documents. Therefore the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the definition of consumer. The complaint of the complainant is therefore dismissed as this Commission does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint of such person who is not the ‘consumer’ within the definition of Section-2(7) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and OP1 & OP2 are not service provider and him.
Before parting with the order, it is being felt necessary to highlight, that
complainant is a person, who would not pay any service charges to the OPs, would not give consent for the C-Section of the wife, would not admit her in hospital, would doubt the chastity of the wife, would doubt the paternity of child, would ask for DNA Test and then would claim a compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) for settling the vendetta w.r.t. facts other then the complaint. In the opinion of this Commission such person cannot be allowed to waste the previous time of the Commission. The Commission cannot be used to settle such vendettas which are not within the jurisdiction of this Commission, that too for which he would not do a single act, to protect the life of unborn child. Therefore it is a fit case where cost has to be imposed upon him. The Commission is accordingly imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- upon complainant to be deposited in ‘State Commission Welfare Fund (Legal Aid), A/C No. 10310544717, State Bank of India, I.P. Estate, Delhi’.
Copy of the order be supplied/sent to both the parties free of cost as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
