Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/58/2021

Bikash Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Koustobh Samal working as Pediatric Doctor at CHC - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.D.G.Mohapatra

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                                                       JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation and Rs.4,30,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and heavy loss towards the death of his father due to negligence”.

            The brief fact of the case is that the father of complainant namely Parikhita Mohanty on dt.06.01.2021 shifted to CHC, Raghunathpur for treatment and the opposite party No.1 being the public servant and authorize by the government to give medical treatment to the beneficiaries and the complainant is a consumer under the opposite parties as the government provide the money towards salary to the opposite parties from the tax collection of the general public and the opposite parties on behalf of government is the service provider to the general peoples. The opposite party No.1 being the public servant disobey the direction under the law and did not provide the treatment to the alling father of the complainant and did not touch him (deceased father of the complainant) and the opposite party No.1 also threatened to the complainant to leave out the CHC, Raghunathpur and in the said course of exchange of words 40 minutes had already passed and due to non treatment, the father of the complainant lost his life due to negligence of the opposite party No.1.

            The complainant intimates the fact to the opposite parties time to time by registered post and by his email Id

            The opposite party No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written version as stated below;

            The dispute raised by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging improper service without going through the provision provided under section 2 (42) of the Act and hence the petition is not sustainable under the law and lacks the potentiality to be entertained. When the complainant failed to explain how he is coming under the provision prescribed under Section 2(7) of the Act his authority to approach this Hon’ble Commission and raise any allegation is restrained under the law.

            The opposite party No.1 was appointed as Pediatric Specialist at Raghunathpur CHC and was allotted with night duty on 06.01.2021. On the said night i.e. on 06.01.2021/07.01.2021 at 1 AM as per the hospital record one Parikhita Mohanty brought into the CHC who was not responding in any manner for which he was declared brought dead and the said fact was duly recorded in the hospital record which proves that there is no latches committed by the opposite party No.1 in treating the patient. The complaint is tented by color when no mention any where has been made by the complainant why his father Late Parikhita Mohanty brought to the hospital suffering from which ailments or having what types of complaint which has not been attended duly by the doctor in-charge at CHC at that time and thereby he made any dereliction of his duty for which he can be held responsible.

            The point to be determined in this case is whether without paying any consideration and by virtue of payment of tax the complainant can be treated as consumer. In this context it is to mention here rule 2 of 7 (II) which stipulate as under;

            “Consumer” means any person who- “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, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.”

            Admittedly the complainant has not paid any consideration and by virtue of paying tax complainant cannot come within the pervue of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore we held that the complainant is not a consumer within the pervue of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As such the complainant has failed to make out a case. Accordingly the consumer complaint is dismissed. No cost.

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 10^th August, 2022.