The Learned  Counsel for  the parties are present. The  petition filed by opp.party No.1  on 18.01.2023 , challenging  the   maintainability  of the  present  proceeding  before this Commission  is   put-up today for   passing  necessary order.

2.       The  complainant and the opp.party No.2,3 & 4  filed their  counter  to the petition filed by the  complainant on 18.01.2023 . All the parties  were  heard  at  length on the  said petition on 29.03.2023.

3.       Admittedly  the  complainant   is the  father  of the deceased  Subhrajeet Pradhan  . It is  alleged by the  complainant  that  he had taken his son  to  Dist. Head Quarter Hospital,Angul for  treatment  after  a  mad stray dog attacked him on 21.04.2020.The  deceased son  of the   complainant  was  not  treated  properly  by opp.party  No.1 & 2. They  were   very  negligent in  treating  the  son  Subhrajeet who  subsequently  died.

4.       On  perusal of the  complaint  petition it  appears   that the  complainant has not paid   any   consideration  for the  treatment of  his  son at Dist. Head Quarter Hospital,Angul .The  Learned  Counsel   for the  complainant  relied  on  a decision namely  Pravat Ku.Mukharjee Vrs. Ruby General Hospital & others  disposed  of by the Hon’ble  National Commission on 25.04.2005 and  submitted that the Govt. Hospital are  not  free  from  the  liability  under the Consumer Protection Act. On the  other hand  the Learned Counsel  for  opp.party No.1  relied  on a decision reported in AIR 1996  SC 550  in the case of Indian Medical Association Vrs. V.Santha & others and submitted that the  complainant  is  not a  consumer at all and   the  service  rendered   by  the   opp.party No.1 & 2  of the   govt. hospital  is  not  coming under the  definition of  “service”  as  defined  under  the  Consumer Protection Act, 2019 .

          On  perusal  of the pleadings of the parties and the  judgements  relied on  by  them  it  is  clear that the  complainant  has not paid  any consideration for the    treatment   of  his  deceased  son in the  Dist.Head Quarter Hospital,Angul .It  is  also clear  that the   service  rendered by the  opp.partyNo.1 & 2  being the  govt. servant  is  not coming  under the  definition of  “Service”  as provided   under  Consumer Protection Act. It is also  clear  from the material  on record that the  complainant is  not  coming  under the  definition   of  consumer  under  Consumer  Protection Act, 2019  as   he  has not paid  any  consideration  for the  treatment   of  his son and the  treatment  given to the  deceased son  of the  complainant  in the  Govt. hospital is  totally  free of cost.

5.       Hence  the present  proceeding   initiated  on the  complaint  filed  by the  complainant  before this  Commission is  not  maintainable. Hence  dropped.