DR.INDER JIT SINGH, MEMBER

This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 11.03.2019 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commission’), in Appeal No. 774 of 2013 vide which his appeal against the order dated 03.07.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Forum’), in CC NO. 99 of 2007 has been dismissed.

2.       Facts of the case are given in the order dated 11.03.2019 of the State Commission, which are part of the record, hence not repeated here.

3.       In the Revision Petition, the petitioner has stated/contended that:-

(i)      His CC No. 99/2007 was dismissed by the District Forum arbitrarily and without going into the merits of the complaint, which was based on deficiency of service as the OPs/Respondents had treated the son of the petitioner negligently, carelessly and also failed to provide service which was expected from them.

(ii)     The State Commission did not go through the Complaint and documents of the petitioner and also not noticed the documents relied/attached by the petitioner, and without going into merits of the appeal, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

(iii)    The petitioner’s grievance is totally based on deficiency of service, negligence, carelessness on the part of OPs/Respondents and malpractices adopted by them.

(iv)    Petitioner still intends to pursue and proceed with his case/claim on merits. A compensation of Rs.15 lakh with interest from date of filing the Complaint till final disposal of the appeal may be awarded in favour of petitioner and OPs/Respondents may be directed to pay the said compensation.

4.       Heard the Petitioner who appeared in person.  Nobody appeared on behalf of Respondents on the date of final hearing.  Perused the written arguments filed by the Respondents.

5.       We have gone through the order dated 11.03.2019 of  State Commission, order dated 03.07.2013 of the District Forum, the Revision Petition as well as all other relevant records/documents of the case.

6.       The State Commission, relying on certain judgments of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter referred to as the National Commission), observed as follows:-

“In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, the OP was Government hospital -The treatment of son of complainant/petitioner was conducted free of cost, no fees was taken.In this situation, the complainant does not fall under purview of consumer.”

                   (Translation of the relevant para of the order of the State Commission)

7.       Then the State Commission quotes various observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding medical negligence in 2010 (1) (RLW 722 (SC) Kasum Sharma & Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Ors and concludes as follows:-

“The son of the complainant was admitted for vomiting and loose motion. When he went in night, he was given medicine for vomiting and loose motion. Rantac injection and glucose was administered on him. On the next day another doctor came, he also examined and discharged. When son of the complainant was brought to hospital, he complained for vomiting and loose motion, there was no symptom of polio and even if there was polio, its treatment would take a long time. Polio cannot be treated immediately. In this situation, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party.

The complaint, dismissed by Ld. District Forum, has no defects, the appeal is dismiss-able, is rejected.”

(Translation of the relevant para of the order of the State Commission)

8.       The main contention of the complainant/petitioner is that his son has been suffering from Polio but the Respondent/doctor treated him for vomiting, diarrhoea, and stomach pain.  The District Forum considered the contentions of the complainant based on records and evidence of the parties and came to a finding that complainant has failed to prove the negligence of respondents, leading to rejection of the complaint.

9.       On going through the orders of State Commission and District Forum, we find that complainant has not been able to establish his case of negligence on the part of the Respondents. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the State Commission or any grounds to intervene with the order of the State Commission on merits.  Hence, the Revision Petition is dismissed.

10.     However, before parting with the judgment, we would like to observe that State Commission in its order dated 11.03.2019 has initially came to a conclusion that the  complainant does not come under the category of consumer, but it went further to consider the case on merits.  In our opinion, once a State Commission finds that complainant is not a consumer, it need not have gone further in the case on merits.  However, as the case was considered by State Commission on merits, we have not gone into the issue of maintainability of Appeal before State Commission, and considered and dismissed the Revision Petition on merits.