Consumer Complaint No. 5/2017

Mallika Barman                       vs        Dr. Arup Dey,

                                                            MBBS (Cal) (Obst & Gynae) & Anr.

Order No.8

Dated : 20.6.2017

            Today is fixed for passing order on the maintainability of the case.

Already heard the submissions of the Ld. Lawyers appearing for the parties. Perused the complaint and also the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs. Considered all these.

It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant underwent Bi-Lateral Tubectomy operation (Ligation) under supervision of OP-1 in Balurghat District Hospital, Dakshin Dinajpur on 14.12.2016. Thereafter, she was discharged from the hospital on 17.12.2016. The further allegation of the complainant is that the complainant experienced a sort of trouble on 19.12.2016 and therefore she got herself admitted to the Dishari Health Point (P) Ltd. at Mokdumpur district Malda and there the operation was again done upon her and thus, she got cured. Now, the complaint has been brought against the OP Nos. 1 & 2 with allegation of deficiency in service.

In order to entertain a complaint before the Consumer Forum, what is first required to be established is that the complainant is a consumer. If the complainant is found to be not a consumer the complaint is not maintainable under the C.P. Act, 1986 and remedy of the complainant lies anywhere other than the Consumer Forum. The definition of a consumer is provided u/s 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, 1986. It is laid down therein that a person will have to either hire or avail of service in lieu of consideration, in order to become a consumer. Coming to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is found that the complainant was treated in the Balurghat district Hospital which is Govt. Hospital and that she was not required to pay anything for the treatment done to her. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant had to pay consultation fees of Rs.200/- and that the OP-1 has also taken Rs.2,500/- from the complainant for tubectomy operation. But no document whatsoever has been produced by the complainant to prove that she paid the consultation fees of Rs.200/- and also Rs.2,500/- to the OP-1 for conducting tubectomy operation on her. It is very difficult to believe that the OP-1 who is a medical officer of a govt. hospital received Rs.2,500/-

-:P/2:-

from the complainant for conducting tubectomy operation on her. In our opinion, this allegation of payment of Rs.2,500/- to OP-1 is made deliberately and motivatedly in order to confirm jurisdiction to the Forum, but in absence of any documentary evidence, we do hold that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, 1986, and that is why the case appears to be not maintainable in law.

            Hence,

O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without costs as being not maintainable in law.

            Let a copy of this order be furnished / supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.