DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.171/24

Sh. Zahied F Chuhan

R/o T-220, Savitri Nagar

Panchsheel Metro Station

Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017

….Complainant

Versus

M/s Max Healthcare Institute Limited

1, Press Enclave Road, Saket,

New Delhi-110017

        ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    :  28.06.2024     

 Date of Order            :  20.08.2024     

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

The complaint is at initial stage.

1.       Complainant’s case is that complainant on 30.10.2023 consulted a Doctor from M/s Max Healthcare Institute Limited, hereinafter referred to as  (OP). Complainant on 14.11.2023 went to the same Doctor for a follow-up treatment and consultation around 2.30 PM. Complainant paid Rs.1900/- towards consultation fee for the said doctor.

2.       The medical attendant outside the doctor’s clinic asked the complainant to wait for one hour as other patients were in the queue. Situation remained the same at 4.30 PM and the complainant was asked to wait again as four patients were ahead in the queue for consultation with the doctor. It is alleged that the doctor attended to a known acquaintance in between the scheduled appointments and further delayed to attend upon the complainant. The medical attendant therein also behaved discourteously and misbehaved with the complainant. As the complainant objected to the misbehaviour, he was denied medical treatment and the attendant of the OP handed over a refund receipt to the complainant.

3.       Thus aggrieved by the behaviour of OP’s complainant approached this Commission for directions to OP to refund Rs.1900/-, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment, dishonor and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

4.       Complainants’ case is that he visited OP hospital for  follow up treatment and he was made to wait  before he could be accommodated   in between the scheduled appointments .Admittedly, complainant was a walk- in patient without any prior appointment therefore, it was important that the doctor attended to the scheduled appointments of other patients.  This Commission does not find any deficiency in service provided by OP, more so as OP had also offered to refund  the consultation fee paid by  the complainant.

5.       Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines ‘Deficiency’ as

“ deficiency” means  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in quality nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being  in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contact or otherwise in relation to any service and includes -

(i) any act of negligence or  commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer;        and

(ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.

6.       In view of the fact  that the complainant is unable to show any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy, instant complaint is rejected in limine being devoid of merit. 

Let a copy of this order be given dasti to the Complainant.  File be consigned to record room.