Delhi

North East

CC/238/2023

Chiranji Lal Arya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. S. Raman (CMO) & Others - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 238/23

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Chiranji Lal Arya S/o Lt. Sh. Omkar R/o B-497, GokulPuri, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Dr. S. Raman (CMO) Veer Savarkar, ArogyaSansthan Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094   Shiv Kumar (TBHV) Supporter Dispensary, Gokalpuri( Delhi Govt. ) Near Post Office Gokalpuri, Delhi-110094	Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

1. The case of the Complainant is that he was diagnosed with TB in July 2020 and got admitted in R.B.T.BHospital Camp, Delhi for treatment. The said hospital referred the Complainant to district TBHospital Gokalpuri for completion of his treatment course. The Complainant state that Opposite Party No.2 stopped his medication course after 5.5 months and after lodging complaint by Complainant Opposite Party No.1 supported the act of Opposite Party No.1 stating done as per procedure. The Complainant state that when the medication was stopped his heath condition started becoming bad and Opposite Party No.1 started the medication course again. Thereafter, after 2.5 months TB centre newDelhi, stopped his medication course and started MDR disease course for next 10 months. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party stopped his medication course after 5.5 months and declared him as MDR disease patient and Opposite Party did not provide proper treatment for his TB disease. Hence there is deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.
2. As per section 07 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the “consumer” means any person who (i)....(ii) hires or avails of any service 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 service 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.
3. In the present case, as per Complainant he did not pay any consideration or promise to pay any consideration to the Opposite Party. Hence, he is not a consumer within the definition of Section 07 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
4. In view of above discussion, we did not see any ground to admit the complaint. The complaint is dismissed.
5. Order announced on 19.09.23.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)        Member

(Adarsh Nain)       Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)                President