Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/163/2022

DHIRENDRA PAL SINGH TYAGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARTIYA CHIKISTA PARISHAD - Opp.Party(s)

13 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.163/22

In the matter of:

 

	Dr. Dhirendra Pal Singh Tyagi, S/o Late Sh. Gyanendra Pal Singh, R/o SU-21, Pitampura, Delhi	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	The Registrar Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Tibiya Medical College Karol Bagh, Delhi   Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad At : C.S.C-III, DDA Market, B-Block, Preet Vihar, Delhi 110092	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

10.12.2018 13.04.2023 13.10.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 29.06.1989, Complainant was registered under the Ayurvedic and Yunani Chikitsa Pranali Board, Delhi Govt. vide registration certificate no. 6981. Complainant stated that the said board was changed and was converted as Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Govt. of Delhi. It is his case that the name of the Complainant was required to be updated in the record of the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Govt. of Delhi by its own without any expenses. It is his case that name of the Complainant was not updated by the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad nor any information was supplied to the Complainant. Thereafter, on 03.01.2018, the Complainant applied for the registration in the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad and as per the demand, the Complainant had deposited Rs. 26,000/- as a fee. After that the fresh registration no.          DBCP/A 8892, Sr. no. 10832/2487 was issued to the Complainant on the basis of earlier registration certificate. It is his case that he was shocked when he came to know that the previous experience of the Complainant was not counted and the Complainant was treated as new entry in the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Govt. of Delhi. It is his case that if the Complainant was considered as new entry, then he should have be charged Rs. 1,000/- instead of Rs. 26,000/-. Complainant stated that it was his mistake that he should have been entered and registered with the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Govt. of Delhi its own. Complainant also sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but they did not give any reply. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 26,000/- which is illegally taken by the Opposite Parties and also to count the seniority of the Complainant on the basis of the earlier registration. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed its reply by way of Counter Affidavit. It is submitted that Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad is a statutory body constituted by the Government of NCT of Delhi to grant registration to the practitioners of Indian System of Medicine who wish to practice in the state of NCT of Delhi. It is stated that the Complainant has applied for registration with it and he was granted registration and therefore there is no deficiency of service. It is stated that section 17 (4) of the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998 is as under:

       “Every person whose name was inserted on a date prior to the constitution of the Parishad in the register of the Board of Ayurvedic & Unani System of medicine, Delhi, shall continue to be registered practitioner of the system concerned in the Parishad and his name shall be inserted in the register of the Parishad without any application or payment of fee by such practitioners.”

 

3. It is further stated that as provided by this Section all the registered practitioners of the erstwhile Board were included in the Register maintained by Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. However, as per provisions of Section 24 of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998, it was duty of all the registered practitioners to get their registration renewed after every five year from the date of registration or last renewal failing which the registration gets automatically cancelled. The section 24 reads as under:

“24. Renewal and restoration of registration- (1) It shall be duty of every registered practitioner to get his registration renewed after five years from the date of registration or last renewal, as the case may be, on making such application and on fulfilment of conditions and payment of fees as may be prescribed for the purpose, within three months after the expiry of the date of registration or renewal, as the case may be, after which the registration shall stand automatically cancelled.”

 

4. It is further stated that public notices were issued by the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad for the above said purpose. One such public notice was made by it on 13.05.2001 requesting those registered with Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad to renew their registration within 90 days. It is further stated that a writ petition was filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi regarding updating the list of electors for elections of Indian Medicine Central Council. In pursuance of this writ petition, a public noted dated 13.05.2001 was issued by the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad regarding new registration of recognized qualification holders of Indian System of Medicine and those persons who have been registered by Ex-Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine to submit their registration certificate to obtain new Registration Certificate within ninety days. After this, period of 60 more days was granted to practitioners through a public notice which stated that “If the persons registered by the Ex-Board do not submit their old registration certificates within the period of 60 days from the date of publications of this notice, their registration will be deemed cancelled. It is stated that in view of this public notice giving 60 more days, the writ petition wad disposed.” It is further stated that since the Complainant did not apply to the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad before lapse of the extended period given by Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad to practitioners registered with erstwhile Board for submission of their old registration certificate, nor he applied for renewal of the registration despite being aware that such a Body has been constituted for registration of Indian System of Medicine practitioners, is clearly a lapse on his part. The breakup of fee of Rs. 26,000/- charged to his is as below:

“Registration Charges – Rs. 4,000/-

  Late fee for Non-registration: for a period more than five years –      Rs. 5,000/- plus Rs. 1,500/- per year afterward

  i.e. from 24.12.2001 to 23.12.2006 – Rs. 4,000/-

  From 24.12.2006 – 03.01.2008 (12 yrs) – 18,000/-

  Total Rs. 26,000/-.”

 

5. It is stated that Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad is a statutory body constituted for grating registration to the practitioners of Indian System of Medicine and it does not count any kind of experience. It is stated that the fee has been charged from the Complainant in accordance with the Gazette Notification dated 12.04.2013. It is stated that the Complainant did not apply to the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad after lapse of the extended period given by Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad to practitioners registered with erstwhile Board for submission of their old registration Certificate, nor he applied for renewal of the registration despite being aware that such a Body has been constituted for registration of ISM practitioners, is clearly a lapse on his part. In the meeting of Ayurvedic/Unani Registration Committee of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad dated 15.12.2002, it was decided that those who apply for registration after the expiration of this period of 60 days they shall be treated as fresh registration. It is further stated that the complaint is without any merit and the same requires dismissal.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

8. The Opposite Parties relied upon the Counter Affidavit filed by Dr. Yogita Munjal.

Arguments & Conclusion

9. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties to address arguments.  We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he is qualified doctor and he possesses the BAMS degree. He was earlier registered as Medical practitioner with Ayurvedic and Yunani Chikitsa Pranali Board, Delhi vide registration no. 6981 on 29.06.1989. His case is that the said board was converted to Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. His case is that his name should have been automatically included as a medical practitioner in the record of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. His case is that this was not done and he was made to pay Rs. 26,000/- for making entry of his name as a medical practitioner in the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. He was charged Rs. 26,000/- for this purpose. His case is that as Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad has failed to enter his name in its record so there is deficiency of service and also it has illegally charged Rs. 26,000/- from it. It is also alleged by him that his previous experience has not been counted by Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad.
10. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that the name of the Complainant was continued to be as a registered medical practitioner in the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad and his name was to be entered/continued with Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad without payment of any fees. It is the case of Opposite Parties that as per the provision of section 24 of the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Act 1998, it was the duty of the Complainant to get his registration renew after every 5 years from the date of registration or last renewal failing which the registration was to be automatically cancelled. The section 24 of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad is as under:

“24. Renewal and restoration of registration- (1) It shall be duty of every registered practitioner to get his registration renewed after five years from the date of registration or last renewal, as the case may be, on making such application and on fulfilment of conditions and payment of fees as may be prescribed for the purpose, within three months after the expiry of the date of registration or renewal, as the case may be, after which the registration shall stand automatically cancelled.”

 

11. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad issued public notices and one notice is also issued on 13.05.2001 requesting whereby the medical practitioners were requested to renew their registration within 90 days however thereafter the time was extended for further 60 days. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant did not apply for renewal of his registration as per the requirement of section 24 of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998. It is a matter of record that the Complainant did not apply for renewal of his registration. The Opposite Parties have placed on record the copy of the public notice and notification dated 12.04.2013 in which the details of the fee have been mentioned. The perusal of the record shows that the Opposite Parties have justified the fees paid by the Complainant as per the said notification.
12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has not complied with the provision of Section 24 of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998 and the fees has been charged from the Complainant for renewal of his registration as per the notification dated 12.04.2013.
13. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
14. Order announced on 13.10.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)