DATE OF FILING : 06.02.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 17.03.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 20.07.2015.
Samaresh Chandra Gupta,
son of late Suresh Chandra Gupta,
Ramchandrapur, Madhyampara, P.S. Sankrail,
PIN 711 303. ...………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
Dr. Indranath Seth,
MBBS, D.O. Geetanjali Apartments, Ramcharan Seth Road,
Ramrajatala, Howrah – 711104. ……………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Samaresh Chandra Gupta, praying for a direction upon the o.p. Dr. Indra Nath Seth for refund of money ‘nil’ and replacement of goods ‘nil’ and praying for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the o.p. for causing physical assault, manhandling and harassment in presence of the patient and cost of proceeding being Rs. 5,000/-.
- The case of the petitioner is that he is a septuagenarian citizen of India and living with his wife and consulted with one eye specialist, namely, o.p. Dr. Indranath Seth, for his wife who needed change of her old spectacle by a costly fiver lens fitted with a new frame. After wearing the new spectacle, she felt severe dizziness and again went to the doctor who after testing the lenses told that the lenses were manufactured as per prescription. He again met the doctor and the male attendant of the doctor misbehaved with him and started manhandling and threatened their consequences and physically assaulted him and he lodged a G.D. in Chatterjee Hat P.S. He then filed this case praying for refund of money and replacement of spectacle and compensation for physical assault.
3. The o.p. appeared in the case and filed written version and also one petition challenging the maintainability of the case and on consent of parties both the maintainability petition and also main case was heard together.
4. The o.p. in his written version denied the allegations made and submitted that the case is not maintainable before this Forum because in the instant case the petitioner prayed for relief against the assault manhandling, harassment, hurling abusing languages to an aged citizen by the male attendant of the o.p. and such facts cannot be dealt with by this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. and it was total negligence on the part of the petitioner and his wife who gave order for new lens on the basis of prescription dated 28.09.2013 and that to the prescription was of Mr. S.C. Gupta and not of Smt. Sakti Gupta. Nobody threatened or assaulted him.
- The only point to be decided here whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- In the prayer portion of the case the petitioner submitted that he prayed for refund of money but there is not mention of any amount and also prayed before the Forum directing o.p. for replacement of goods but there is no mention of the article to be replaced. He further prayed for a direction upon the o.p. to pay him compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the physical assault, manhandling, harassment etc and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs. The prayers are found vague. The first and the second prayer cannot be allowed because there is no mention of money to be refunded or the article to be replaced. Further, for physical assault, manhandling etc. of a senior citizen of our country one has to approach the agency maintaining law and order and there lies a criminal case against persons who caused such assault etc. Filing a case before the Forum on any fact cannot be entertained unless the petitioner is a consumer and the dispute between the petitioner and the o.p. is a consumer dispute. Here the petitioner went to the doctor for treatment and he is consumer under the doctor. But there is no dispute with the doctor. He filed the case on the basis of document which was issued by doctor in 2013. The petitioner submitted that the incident took place in the beginning of 2015 but no such document has been placed before the Forum. The prescriptions he filed was of 28.9.2013, 06.11.2011, 25.10.2009, 17.07.2004 and 27.07.2002. He lodged GDE on 01.02.2015 but the contents of the same were not produced before the Forum. He placed one tax invoice dated 22.01.2015 showing purchase of one spectacle on 22.01.2015 but the G.D. was lodged on 01.02.2015 i.e., after one week. The contents of the petition are vague as well as prayers of the petition. The averment supported by evidence both oral and documentary showing that one having no connection with the other and no case of deficiency in service made out rather negligence of the petitioner is proved who ordered for making a spectacle 2015 on the basis of prescription of 2013. Further, on such facts of the case a criminal case may lie but not a case under the C.P. Act. Thus the case being filed on frivolous grounds, this Forum has no other alternative but to reject the petition which is not maintainable before this Forum being vague and ambiguous as noticed from the acts and conducts of the petitioner.
In view of above the claim case fails.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 50 of 2015 ( HDF 50 of 2015 ) be dismissed on contest and order as to cost.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
