District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No. 161/2023

 Date of Institution:07.03.2023

Date of Order:03.05.2023.

Harry Khanna, aged 33 years, R/o House No. 2124, Sector-9, Faridabad Aadhar Card No. 3908 1666 3234, Mobile No. 9716666471.

                                                          …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

Dr. Devender Singh Rathee, Physiotherapy Clinic, Basement,SCO-162, HUDA Market, Sector-9, Faridabad – 121006.

                                                                              …Opposite party

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.R.C.Khanna , counsel for the complainant.

                             Ms. Ruchi Gupta , counsel for opposite party.

ORDER:  

                   Today the case was fixed for  consideration on the application.

                   Counsel for the opposite party/applicant has filed an application for dismissal of the complaint as the same is not maintainable under the provisions of the  Act stating that the complaint filed by the complainant is not admissible as such as the complainant has filed a case tiled “complaint u/Sec. 35 for recovery of Rs.16,12,400/-“ when the complainant has as per the contents of the plaint only paid Rs.400/- to the opposite party.  As per the contents of the complaint no deficiency in service is made out as the complainant himself has stated that the opposite party conducted several tests of the wife of the complainant and record the same on the letter pad  which is annexed with the complaint, however, the copy of annexure has not been supplied to the opposite party., instead from a reading of the complaint it seems that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant as a vengeance to assuage his ego as an Advocate.          There is no deficiency in service when the opposite party examined the patient properly and recorded the findings of diagnosis on the prescription slip.  It has been  prayed that the present complaint be dismissed with heavy costs.

2.                This application has been opposed by the complainant stating that the opposite party has taken this stand that since the complainant has only paid Rs.400/- to the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to recover Rs.16,12,400/- whereas the fact is that the claim lodged by the complainant is for the acts of the omission and commission on the part of the opposite party which has resulted into the tarnishing the socio economic image of the complainant. He further submitted that the contents of the complaint may kindly be referred where the complainant has in para 1 on page 2 had submitted that the applicant/opposite party had just orally/physically checking informed to have conducted special test of compression (+) and distraction test +VE and recorded on the VAS Scale printed on the applicant/opposite party prescription slip have written on point NO.4 back and on point NO.7 of the scale the applicant/opposite party had written Cx and have also reported to have conducted the muscle test and applicant/opposite party had made SLR tests prone knee bending test, long sitting reach test, slump test and gaenrlevid test as recorded on the letter pad of the applicant/opposite party but the opposite party had not made any test as recorded on the prescription fee on any machine or with any instrument or any measurement scales and as such that created a doubt in the mind of the complainant and on this accord even the application’s contentions raised in the application under reply are not sustainable . It is prayed that the application may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs.

3.                Heard.

4.                Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that the application filed by the opposite party is allowed and the main complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.

Announced on:  03.05.2023                                         (Amit Arora)

                                                                                          President

                        District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                             (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                          (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                  Redressal Commission, Faridabad.