HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS,PRESIDENT

          This Appeal has been directed against the Judgement and order dated 301.2019 passed by ld. D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata Unit II in C.C. 127 of 2018 where the ld.Forum concerned while disposing of the said Complaint Case dismissed it on contest without cost.

          Being aggrieved by such order of dismissal the present Appeal has been preferred by the Complainant Umran Begam.

          The case of the Appellant/Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) was that her husband Md. Mustafa was admitted to the Hospital of the OP /IPGMER on 11.4.2005 for surgery and treatment of Hernia and after admission he was shifted to Karjon ward at bed no.44. He also paid a sum of Rs.1120/- (Rupees one thousand one hundred twenty ) as per direction of the Hospital Authority and a visitor’s card was issued in his favour. At the time of admission of the patient the complainant and her daughter accompanied him. On 12.4.2005 at about 10 a.m. when the complainant and her daughter had been to the SSKM Hospital to visit the patient they found that the patient was not in bed and upon enquiry the complainant understood that the victim was missing since 7 a.m. The matter was immediately informed by her to the Hospital Authority and a missing diary being G.D.entry no. 1332 dated 12.4.2005 before the Bhabanipur Police Station was lodged. The complainant submitted several applications  before the several Authorities including the Human Rights Commission and the Commissioner of Police , Kolkata as well as the Hospital Authority but her all  attempts went in vain. On 12.10.2017 a Police Report was received by the complainant wherein it was stated that all efforts to trace out the missing person could not be successful. On 22.10.2014 the final non-traceability report of the missing person /patient herein was issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police , Kokata after seven years of such missing and finding no other alternative the complainant moved a Writ Petition being WP 6975(W) of 2015 before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court by order dated 10.4.2015 directed the Respondent Authorities to complete the proceeding in the courts of law and directed the complainant to file a declaration of her rights in accordance with the procedure. The complainant alleged that due to negligence on the part of the OP, she lost her husband and due to such missing, the family of the patient was suffering as the patient was the only earning member  who would earn a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) approximately per month and the complainant prayed for compensation of a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakh fifty thousand) including compensation and litigation cost.

          A Written Version was filed on behalf of the OP where it was contended that the Complaint Case was not maintainable , the same being a frivolous one . Denying the cause of action as averred in the Petition of Complaintm, the OP contended that the IPD Medical records are to be preserved for 10 years and Medical test report should be preserved for 15 years as per Govt. Order and the patient was admitted about 13 years back and it was not possible for the OP to trace out the documents of treatment of the patient. Denying the status of the complainant as consumer, the OP with reference to a direction of the Hon’ble High Court , Calcutta, contended that the Civil Court is the Appropriate Court for getting reliefs to the complainant and the instant case was filed with misconception of law. Denying and disputing all other material averments the OP herein ultimately prayed for dismissal of the Complaint Case.

          Now the  point for consideration is whether ld.Trial Forum was justified in dismissing the Complaint Case  on the grounds as noted in the impugned judgement.

          The admission of the patient at the Hospital on 11.4.2005 for surgery and treatment of hernia and shifting of the patient to Karjan ward in bed no. 44 , payment of a sum of Rs.1120/- (Rupees one thousand one hundred twenty) , issuance of a visitor’s card etc at the time of admission of the patient are not disputed. Ld. D.C.D.R.F. in the impugned judgement categorically held that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P.Act , 1986 and dismissed her claim.

          The Consumer Court is meant for giving protection to the consumers provided that he/she  is proved to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act . The receipt showing payment of a sum of Rs.1120/- (Rupees one thousand one hundred twenty ) as per Annexure P was made by the patient Md. Mustafa before the Hospital for his treatment and the receipt itself showing payment conclusively established that the patient was the ‘consumer’. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Authorities under the Consumer Protection Act whether it is District Forum, State Commission or Hon’ble National Commission are obliged to give protection to the consumers only and the same being a beneficial legislation, the consumers can claim relief for any consumer disputes, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice etc. The complainant who claims herself to be the wife of the victim cannot be entitled to any  relief in her representative capacity unless and until it is established that the husband of the complainant is declared  ‘dead’. The complainant went to the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and preferred a Writ Petition claiming certain reliefs and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court by an order dated 10.4.2015 directed the Complainant to approach the Civil Court for getting declaration in terms of the Section 108 of the Evidence Act. Unless such a certificate is  produced before any Court, no Court can give any relief to the complainant as a representative of the victim and in the instant case , the complainant instead of taking recourse of the Civil Court approached the District Forum for getting reliefs without waiting for any declaration, as referred to. In the back ground we are constrained to hold that the Complainant took recourse of the D.C.D.R.F. at a premature stage without establishing her status as complainant and  she cannot be entitled to any relief as claimed. Ld. D.C.D.R.F. considering all these aspects dismissed the Complaint Case and we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of ld. D.C.D.R.F. and accordingly we dispose of the Appeal by dismissing it. Parties do bear their respective costs of Appeal.