Heard learned counsel for Complainant-Smt.Warunjikar.

Perused documents on record, present complaint is filed against Nair Dental (Government) Hospital Opposite Party No.1 and Dr.Snehal Patil, dentist, Nair Dental Hospital, Opposite Party No.2. Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.6,00,000/- paid for treatment of “Stem Cell Grafting” & “Left Total Hip Replacement” alongwith interest, compensation and cost.  From the document annexed to the complaint it can be seen that Complainant has avail treatment with Opposite Party No.1 & 2 in the year 2008, 2009, 2010, which are Ex.A by the Complainant and relates to certain dental problems.  For treatment avail with Opposite Party No.1 & 2 as document at Ex.A, it can be seen that Complainant paid Rs.15/- on 03.01.2009, Rs.20/-on 14.01.2009, Rs.15/- on 17.06.2009, Rs.65/- on 20.08.2009, Rs.40/- on 22.03.2010, towards various charges which we are unable to decipher.  Therefore we are unable to conclude what this payment is made for against the treatment.  Therefore we can say that this amount is not for service taken, therefore, we came to the conclusion that Opposite Parties are not come to the ambit under provision of Consumer Protection Act. The learned counsel also relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No. A/16/772 in the case Medical Suprintendent, K.B.Bhabha Hospital Belgram Road, Kurla West, Mumbai-Vs-Mrs.Zeenat Abdul Rahim Khan, decided on 21.08.2019.  In view of our above observations, as the facts and circumstances of the present case is different therefore, we respectfully say that this case law is not applicable to the present case, Complainant has claimed of Rs.6,00,000/- for  hip replacement and Stem Cell Grafting which treatment, it appears has been taken Jaslok Hospital in the year 2017.  Complainant also failed to establish any connection between treatment taken with Opposite Party No.1 & 2 in 2008-2010 and the treatment taken at Jaslok Hospital in 2017 and present complaint.

        Further it can be also been seen that after year 2010 Complainant went back to Opposite Party No.1 & 2 for further treatment in the year 2013, as per documents Ex.D and At Ex.G. Complainant has also annexed document for treatment taken  Breachcandy  Hospital, Prince Ali Khan Hospital, Regenerative Medical Services Pvt.Ltd., but has failed to show how Opposite Party No.1 & 2 can be held responsible for these different treatments at Ex.B is a letter of Dr.Minal Wadikar private practitioner dated 10.03.2019, which it appears has been used as the document to give rise to the cause of action for this present complaint. Learned counsel has not proven any relation to the prayer made in the present complaint against Opposite Party No.1 & 2.  Hence we are unable to come to the conclusion that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of Opposite Parties.  Hence the complaint is dismissed in limine.