DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.585/2022

Date of Institution: 07.11.2022

Order Reserved on: 05.04.2024

Order Passed on: 05.04.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Order By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

ORDER

Arguments on admission have been concluded on 05.04.2024. Heard.

1. Brief facts stated by the complainant who is husband of decease Mrs. Raj Mohan Ahluwalia, in the complaint are that OP1 is the hospital which is being run by OP2, OP3 is it’s Managing Director and is supervising the entire activities of OP1 and OP4 is a Sr. Doctor and Doctor ‘internal medicine’ of OP1.
2. On 18.04.2021 his wife was feeling feverish thereafter his family doctor was called who prescribed certain medicine via whatsapp and on 25.04.2021 at about 10.00 a.m. the wife of the complainant since deceased started feeling difficulty in breathing and thereafter they called the family doctor again i.e. Dr. P.N. Seth who advised to admit her in the hospital and thereafter he made a call to OP4 and explained the matter to him about the health condition of his wife who inturn told the complainant to admit his wife in his hospital i.e. OP1 and when complainant reached with his wife at the hospital and informed the staff of the OP1 that OP4 has called him to admit the patient in the hospital but staff informed him that management has ordered not to take Covid-19 patients and as such despite having waited up to 2 hours and despite making numerous calls to OP4 he did not pick up the call and at about 3.30 p.m. the staff of OP4 told/advised the complainant that since they do not have any bed the complainant may try some other hospitals and it is despite the fact that during this period two patient had died in the emergency room and those two beds were available in the emergency and this fact was also informed to the staff of OP1 but despite that OPs have refused to admit the wife of the complainant in the hospital, by stating so many facts. Thereafter, that on the refusal of the admission by the OP1 to OP4, the wife of complainant was taken to Life Line hospital, Delhi – 110092, where unfortunately she could not survive. Certain allegations have also being levelled against the doctor of Life Line Hospital but since they are not parties to the present complaint, such facts are not mentioned in the complaint. It is further stated that complainant has also filed the complaint against the OPs before the SDM concerned who took the cognizance of the complaint and issued notice to OPs as well as Life Line Hospital and certain enquiries were also referred, but present case is only against the OPs/Max Hospital and its doctors and ultimately it is prayed that had the opposite party would have admitted the wife of the complainant in the hospital, his wife would have been alive and since the admission was denied, this is against the professional ethics of OPs and as such he has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the prayer that OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- and also be directed to provide the record, of the available beds on 25.04.2021 alongwith the cost.
3. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record and on very first date of hearing the one counsel Shri Akit Chourdhary, Advocate appeared and he sought adjournment when the question with respect to consideration was asked. Complainant appeared on the next date i.e. 21.03.2023 and again sought adjournment and matter was adjourned for 05.04.2024. The counsel for the complainant appeared meanwhile, after the matter had been adjourned, and on his request date 05.04.2024 was cancelled and matter was fixed for arguments on admission on 07.11.2023 but 07.11.2023, no one was present for complainant and matter was adjourned for 05.04.2024 i.e. today only the Ld. Counsel for complainant has concluded the arguments.
4. Counsel for complainant has argued that this is a case of unfair trade practice under Consumer Protection Act and therefore notice be issued to the OP.  The Commission has enquired as to how the complainant is a consumer of the OPs in absence of any consideration paid, to which if he submits that although no consideration has been paid, yet wife of the complainant has expired on account of non admission by the OP in their hospital.
5. The Commission has heard the arguments. Before issuing the notice, the first, thing which is to be appreciated is as to whether the complainant is a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 2(7) of CP Act, 2019 read as under:

"consumer" means any person who (i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) any services 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 services other than the person who 1[hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person;

6. Every commission or every tribunal has to act as per the Act Governing the said Commission and consumer commissions are being governed by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Where the definition of consumer has been given, as mentioned here in above. The Complainant allegedly visited the hospital on the request of OP4 and then OP4 did not admit the patient is altogether an oral fact and even this fact is presumed, that OP4 might have informed the complainant to bring the patient in the hospital and then has not admitted the patient may be ethically in correct but to qualify that complainant is a consumer, he has to be within the definition of the consumer as mentioned in the Act and admittedly complainant has not made any payment to the OP for taking its services, rather the fact is that he visited the hospital where the patient could not be admitted patient for one reason or the other. Thereafter the patient was taken to some other hospital. There may be some professional misconduct or violation of the oath by the Doctor but same is not the within domain particularly for a complaint under Consumer Protection Act and since no consideration has been paid or promised to be paid the complainant does not qualify to be a consumer within the definition of Section 2(7) of the CP Act, 2019.
7. Accordingly, complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer, under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and therefore the complainant is rejected.

File be consigned to record room.