Today has been fixed for necessary order on the point of admissibility of the complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

       We heard the learned counsel as well as perused the complaint.

       It is stated in the said  complaint that the complainant due to ill health approached  Hekra State Dispensary  and the doctor advised him to test the  RBS and S.Creatinine and accordingly, he approached the opp.party . The opp.party examined the RBS and S.Creatinine showing  that the level of S.Creatinine is 2.16 g/dl. Where reference renge is 0.5 - 1.4 mg/dl.

        The complainant submitted that he visited the doctor who advised him to take some medeicine on the basis of test report done by the opp.party.  After consumption of medicines the complainant suffered serious illness and finding no other alternative, he approached Sri Dipak Ch.Borbora and Sri Borbora also advised him to undergo some test including creatinine and this report shows the creatinine 2.9 . The complainant  ultimately was compelled to admit himself GMCH .

    The complainant further submitted that after consultaion with the doctors, he came to know that due to wrong report of the opp.party, he has been treated in different hospital.

The  oppl.party is responsible for the sufferings of the complainant both physicaly ,  mentally and financially .

    Unde the circumstances stated above , the complainant prays for a compensation amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- along with other relief .

    We have gone through the definition of complaint in Secton 2 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and is as follows,

   “Complaint” means any allegation in wriing, made by a complainant  for obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act, that –

(i)            An unfair contract  or unfair trade practice or a restrictive trtade practice has been adopted by any trader or aservice  provider ;

(ii)           the goods brought by him or agreed to be bought by him  suffer from one or more defects ;

(iii)          the services turned or availed of or agreed  to be hired or availed  of by  him suffer  from  any deficency.

(iv)         A trader or a service provider , as the case my be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price-

(a)          Fixed by or under any law for the time being in force, or

(b)          Displayed on the goods or any package  containing such goods or

(c)           Displayed  on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being  in force ; or

(d)          Agreed between the parties ;

         The above definition of complaint as referred in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not  cover any of the criteria  of a complaint as mentioned in Section 2 (6) (I ) to (IV) . However section 2 (6)(V), (VI) and  (VII) also does not cover the present complaint as made by the complainant .               

          Hence, in our view  the test report submitted by the opp.party does not appear to be a unfair trade practice  or there is no such  prima facie  material as recorded  with medical opinion or report which shows  unfair trade practice as well as  injuries  to life and safety to the public etc. Moreover, if we go through the definition of a consumer,  we found that the right of the consumer is no way disregarded or there was any unfair trade practice or   sale of goods or any   deficiency in service apparently in the complaint petition. As such , we found no material admitting the complaint petition and accordingly same is dismissed.