Maharashtra

Additional DCF, Thane

CC/22/93

MR. BHARAT TUKARAM SHENDGE - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.Y. PATIL HOSPITAL AND 12 0RS - Opp.Party(s)

PRASAD PANCHAL

19 Jul 2022

ORDER

THANE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Room no. 428 and 429, Konkan Bhavan Annex Building, 4th Floor,
C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 614
 
Complaint Case No. CC/22/93
( Date of Filing : 25 Apr 2022 )
 
1. MR. BHARAT TUKARAM SHENDGE
RESIDING AT- GREENFIELD APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, NL-6, BLD NO. 12, ROOM NO 16, SECTOR-8, NR. MANAK HOSPITAL, NERUL (W), NAVI MUMBAI 400706
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. D.Y. PATIL HOSPITAL AND 12 0RS
OFF AT- SANTOSHI MATA NAGAR, PLOT NO. 2, SECTOR-5, NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI 400706
2. DR. ANAND P SUDE, 3. DR. AMIT S SAXENA, 4. DR. MANOHAR JOSHI, 5. DR. SWETA R. NAIR, 6. DR. RAJDEEP S. PAL, 7. DR. ANISHA P. LANDGE, 8. DR. MUMTAJ SHARIF, 9. DR. FAHMIDA NAJMUDDIN,
10. DR. PRITI R. INAMDAR, 11. DR. NILU VIVEKELON, 12. DR. BHUSHAN K. CHAVAN, 13. DR. SAJAL R. MAHAJAN NO.2 TO 13 ALL DOCTORS OFFICE AT- SANTOSHI MATA NAGAR, PLOT NO.2, SEC-5, NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI 400706
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. R.P.Nagre PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Gauri M. Kapse MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Sheetal A.Petkar MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 19 Jul 2022
Final Order / Judgement

COMMON ORDER EXH-1

Date 19/07/2022

Perused the complaint, heard the advocates Gaurav Ombale of Complainant

After hearing the question arises that whether the Complainant and has taken paid service? For that the opportunity has given to the Complainant to prove that he has paid consideration services of Opponent, but the Complainant and his advocate failed to satisfy the Commission and remain absent.

After going through the complaint it is observed that in para No. 5(a) of the complaint, Complainant averred that he has taken the services of the opponent under Maharashtra Police Kutumb Arogya Yojana in which it is mentioned that the under said schme the medical facility to Maharashtra Police & their family member is provided free of cost.

Therefore in view of this Commission the Complainant has taken free of cost services of the O.P., hence he is not Consumer within provision of Sec. 2(7)(i)of C.P. Act 2019.

Hence complaint stands dismissed.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. R.P.Nagre]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Gauri M. Kapse]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sheetal A.Petkar]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.