Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) including compensation and litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that she being 65 years old, was suffering from waist pain and hence 13.09.2007 she along with her husband came to the clinic of opposite party no. 1. She deposited Rs. 200/- with the compounder of opposite party no. 1 as consultation fees of opposite party no. 1. As per date fixed by compounder, she was examined by opposite party no. 1 on 24.10.2007, who advised her for M.R.I.test in Udyan Scan center of which report was obtained by her on 18.12.2007 at 7:00 PM. On 20.12.2007 when she came to consult opposite party no. 1 she was not allowed to do so unless she deposited Rs. 200/- again as fee of opposite party no. 1 under compulsion. Thereafter, she was given date of 05.02.2007 by compounder of opposite party no. 1. It is further case of the complainant that deliberately instead of 05.02.2008 the aforesaid date was mentioned.
The grievance of the complainant is that despite of charging fee for second time ( i.e. Rs. 400/- ) she was not allowed to consult opposite party no. 1 inspite of restless condition and as such this conduct has resulted in deficiency of service of opposite party. It is further case of the complainant is that M.R.I. report no treatment was given by opposite party no. 1.
On behalf of opposite party written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. He has denied any physical assault.
It has been asserted by opposite party no. 1 that he is duly insured with professional indemnity policy no. 210901/46107/33/00000124 of United India Insurance Company w.e.f 13.02.2008 to 12.02.2009. In Para – 11 of written statement the opposite party no. 1 has stated as follows, “outdoor service of my client is between 9 to 12 am everyday except Saturday and Sunday. The consultant is strictly by appointment and usually the waiting time is 4 to 6 weeks. The patient who are in the list to be seen on that date are called at 9 o’clock and as per their arrival in the premises, they are given serial number of the waiting list. For example, the patient who has the number 30 comes 8:30 am he gets serial no. one or two this is done to avoid inconvenience to people who have been waiting since morning in the premises. The patients are allowed in OP’s chamber after the dtringent security check up by the security personal ( as OP had threat on his life few months ago and OP keeps own security guards). At the same time only the patients who have the token and serial number in the list are allowed in the chamber. There is a cut off time at 12 o’clock and no new token is given if even of this name in the serial number because it takes mora that two hours to finish the work.”
A reply has been filed on behalf of complainant repeating the same fact which she had already stated in her complaint petition.
-
The grievance of the complainant is that despite realizing fee twice i.e. Rs. 200/- + 200/- and M.R.I. report, she was not allowed to meet Doctor rather there was humiliation on the part of opposite party. There is no evidence on the record to show that opposite party has mistreated her and her family members. If there was any mistreatment on the part of opposite party then it was duty of the complainant to take recourse to law by complaining the competent authority but no such step appears to have been taken.
From the complaint petition itself, it is crystal clear that complainant had met Doctor who after examining her advised her M.R.I. from Udyan Scan Center. There is no evidence on the record that when she came to Doctor with M.R.I. report she was not given proper treated or humiliated because the fact asserted by complainant in complaint petition has been denied by opposite party. It is duty of the complainant to prove her case. No order can be passed either on disputed facts nor on presumption. From the complaint it further appears that second time complainant had no occasion to meet opposite party no. 1.
Hence we find and hold that there is no evidence to prove deficiency on the part of opposite party no. 1.
For the reason stated above we find and hold that this complaint is without merit and as such this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.
Member President
