Per Hon'ble Dr. S.K. Kakade, Presiding Member

1. Aggrieved by the death of his only son, who was doctor, this complaint has been filed by Shri. Amarjeet B Mishra from Thane, the father of deceased Dr. Vijay Mishra against Dr. Panjabrao alias Bhausaheb Deshmukh Memorial Medical College, Amravati, and 5 others, seeking relief alleging that there was medical negligence in providing treatment to the deceased doctor Vijay, undergoing internship in the same Medical College. 
2.  The brief facts in deciding this complaint are as follows,

 The complainant Shri. Amarjeet Mishra Residing at Kenwood Park, flat number 302, Building no. 14, Ramdev Park Road, Mira Road (East) District -Thane, is the father of deceased Dr. Vijay Amarjeet Mishra. Vijay completed his MBBS course successfully in the year 2014 in opposite party Medical College known as Dr. Panjabrao alias Bhausaheb Deshmukh Memorial Medical College, Amravati and he was undergoing an internship in the year 2015.  Dr. Vijay suddenly died on 24^th March 2015 under mysterious circumstances. Alleging that his son did not receive proper emergency medical treatment just prior to his death and that there was medical negligence in the treatment of Dr. Vijay because of which his life could not be saved, the Complainant filed complaint before this Commission in 2016.  There was an outcry of the internee doctors and medical students against the college administration and staged demonstration against the Medical College and Hospital. Alleging that Dr. Vijay did not receive emergency treatment due to non-availability of emergency drugs and instruments in the casualty, he died. Accordingly the complainant filed a complaint against OP no. 1, Dr.Panjabrao alias Bhausaheb Deshmukh Memorial Medical College at Amravati, OP no. 2- the Medical Superintendent of OP no. 1,   Dr. Ajay Daphale, Dr. Dilip Jani, and Dr. Arun Shelke, are OP no. 3, 4, and 5, respectively, working in the medical college who treated Dr. Vijay., And the OP no. 6 Shri. Vinay Bhamburkar, secretary in the medical college. The opposite parties defended the complaint by filing written statements and evidence on record and also filed written notes of arguments. Hence this complaint was herd finally.

3. We heard the rival submissions and arguments advanced by learned advocates of both parties and perused the record.Considering submissions of advocates for both parties,  record, and scope of the complaint, the following points arise for our determination, and our findings thereon are noted as against them for the reasons herein below:

POINTS :

REASONS:

1. AS TO POINT NO. 1: “CONSUMER’

Learned advocate for the complainant submitted that Dr. Vijay Mishra, age 23 years was working as an intern after completion of his MBBS degree and was working with the opposite party No.1. He died in mysterious circumstances on 23-24 March 2015. The post-mortem examination of Dr. Vijay’s body was not conducted on the request of the complainant, the father of Dr. Vijay.  According to the submission of the learned advocate, on the day when he died i.e.  On 23-24 March 2015, Dr. Vijay did not receive proper emergency treatment in the casualty department of the medical college,  there was certainly medical negligence while treating him, with result that life of Dr. Vijay could not be saved. Inviting our attention to the fees paid by the complainant for the MBBS course of Dr. Vijay and receipts filed there on record. Learned advocate for the complainant further submitted that it was the duty and the responsibility of the Medical College and Hospital to take care of the doctors working with them. According to the learned advocate for the complainant, the educational fees paid to the medical college, while Dr. Vijay was undergoing the MBBS course, is the consideration that was paid by the complainant to the opposite party no. 1.  Hence the complainant, being the father of the deceased becomes consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Advocate for the opposite Party no. 2 opposed this contention of the complainant and submitted that the payment of the fees for MBBS course cannot be the consideration under Consumer Protection Act, the same has been denied by the opposite Party no. 2 in the written statement, reference page no. 370 of complaint compilation. Advocate for opposite party no. 3, who was the treating doctor, also supported the contention of opposite Party no. 2. We have perused the record. According to Complainant, the details of the consideration paid by the complainant are as follows,

2. Details of the fees paid by the complainant :

3.  On the perusal of the above details and corresponding receipts on record, it cannot be inferred that the fees paid by the complainant towards the MBBS course of his son should be considered as the consideration paid for thealleged negligent treatmentthat Dr. Vijay received. In other words, when the consideration not paid for the services availed, the complainant does not become a consumer.  As per section 2(1) (d) of the consumer protection act 1986,”Consumer” is defined as follows,
4. Section 2 (1) (d) “consumer” means any person who,—
5. (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
6. (ii)  [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
7. It is quite clear from the about section of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, that the services of the opposite parties were provided without consideration. And the tuition fees and other fees during the MBBS course cannot be considered as the “consideration” for the services which were supposed to be made available to the complainant’s son.  Hence we do not hold that the complainant is consumer within the meaning and scope of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, under which this complaint was filed.  We answer POINT No. 1 as NEGATIVE.

8. AS TO POINT NO.2: “DEFICIENCY, NO. 3: RELIEFS

 In view of the answer to point number 1, as negative, there is no question of proceeding ahead to examine the submissions as well as other documents on record to judge whether there was medical negligence while treating Dr. Vijay by the opposite party; hence the other questions and points do not survive. 

9. AS TO POINT NO. 4: What Order?

In view of the above discussion, the complaint does not survive before the consumer commission; hence we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Consumer Complaint is dismissed with a cost quantified to Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Copy of this order is to be given to all the parties free of cost.