Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/1509

RAM KUMAR TRIPATHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER. - Opp.Party(s)

SH. RAJESH RATHIYA

21 Jul 2017

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                          

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1509 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 06.09.2016 passed in C.C.No. 406/2016 by District Forum, Gwalior)

 

RAMKUMAR TRIPATHI,

S/O SHRI PRAYAG NARAYAN TRIPATHI,

R/O BEHIND BUDHEBALAJI MIDDLE SCHOOL,

GUNA (M.P.).                                                                               ….        APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. CHIEF MEDICAL & HEALTH OFFICER,

    MOTI MAHAL, GWALIOR.

 

2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

    HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE,

    GOVERNMENT OF M.P. BHOPAL.                                          …      RESPONDENTS.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA  :   PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN                         :   MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGARWAL                        :   MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for appellant.                                         

                                                  O R D E R

                                           (Passed On  21.07. 2017)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri Subhash Jain, Member:

           

                   This appeal is filed by the complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior in C.C.No.406/2016 whereby the complaint filed by him was dismissed.

2.                     Brief facts of the case as portrayed by the complainant are that his wife was treated in local cancer hospital and research centre and as a result of drug trial she died.  Thus the opposite parties are liable to compensate him.  He therefore filed a complaint against them claiming compensation.

3.                     The District Forum holding that the complainant is not a consumer, dismissed his complaint at the admission stage.  Thus the present appeal.

4.                     Heard learned counsel on admission.

 

-2-

5.                     Learned counsel for appellant during arguments failed to satisfy us that how the appellant is a consumer of respondents.

6.                     After hearing learned counsel for appellant and on going through the material available on record we failed to understand how the complainant termed himself as a consumer of respondents.  He failed to produce any document to show us that he paid any consideration to the respondents for treatment of his wife.  He also did not make the Cancer Hospital & Research Centre where his wife got treatment and died, as a party to the complaint. He also failed to show whether that hospital is government hospital or a private hospital meaning thereby he got treatment of his wife free of cost or after paying charges. He failed to produce any document to show that he hired or availed services of hospital or respondents after paying consideration to them.  In such circumstances, the complainant/appellant cannot be termed as “Consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

7.                     We are in full agreement with the finding recorded by the District Forum that the complainant/appellant is not a consumer and he is not entitled to get any relief from the respondents under the Act. We find that the District Forum has nowhere erred in dismissing the complaint. We are not inclined to take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit and substance is dismissed at the admission stage and the order of the District Forum is affirmed.