Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
Brief facts of the case: This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant describing that on 13.2.2017 he visited Rishra Medical Service for examination/ testing of blood and x-ray as per the advice of his doctor and he had deposited Rs. 900/- as fees for the test and thereafter a person who is a non technical person engaged as helper to do miscellaneous acts and service to the doctors and others, appeared before him with syringe to collect blood and when the complainant drew the attention of the opposite party for collection of blood through non technical person, one Srijan Chakraborty came and told that they are not willing to examine his blood and also misbehaved with him. After that the complainant humbly requested the opposite party to collect his blood through a proper person but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and insulted him. Therefore, the complainant issued a letter of complaint to the Chief Medical Officer, Hooghly stating all the material facts which ultimately resulted in an enquiry and the matter was reported to the complainant by A.C.M.O.H dated 23.05.2017 that allegation of the complainant was a fact as the report states, “ the enquiry revealed unqualified MT Lab Technician.”
Case of the opposite party: The opposite party contests the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against her and submits that being a resident of Rishra the complainant was known to Sri Srijan Chakraborty, the husband of the proprietor of the opposite party-clinic as he is also a permanent resident of Rishra. On 13.2.2017 the complainant came to the opposite party- clinic only for blood test and the cost of that test was Rs. 900/- and at that time the complainant continuously insisting said Srijan Chakraborty for giving some discount on Rs. 900/- but as it was not possible for him then the complainant became very much annoyed and he started using very filthy languages towards the receptionist, technician and non technician staff in presence of all the patients. Then the receptionist returned the money back to the complainant in cash in presence of other employees of the opposite party-clinic but out of hesitation Srijan Chakraborty did not take any receipt from the complainant against such refund. Thus, the complainant is never a consumer and is not entitled to any amount towards any compensation so the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Evidence adduced by both the parties
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument advanced by the Ld. advocates of the complainant and the opposite parties heard at length.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue number 1
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Issue number 2
Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. Considering the claim amount of complainant as per prayer of the petition of complainant it appears that the same does not exceed Rs. 20,00,000/-. So, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present case.
Issue nos.3&4 :
Both the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The specific case of the complainant is that on payment of RS. 900/ ON 13.02.2017 he was asked to have medical service at Rishra Medical Service towards testing his blood and x ray as per advice of his doctor. On his surprise he found that one non technician will collect his blood when he denied to have the service by such a person which resulted in his refusal to service and was forced to leave the Laboratory for which as a senior citizen and reputed person he was humiliated and felt insulted. This fact was intimated to the C.M.O.H Hooghly on the basis of which an enquiry was made by A.C.M.O.H Serampur wherein “ the enquiry revealed unqualified MT Lab Technician and the service of the centre remained suspended till new MT was appointed.”
It appears from the written notes of argument of the O.P that subsequently two technicians were appointed and their certificates being accepted by the C.M.O.H Hooghly the O.P was permitted to run the clinic vide memo no. 3487 dated14.06.2017.
It further appears that the O.P at page 2 of its affidavit in chief has admitted “…..with the intervention of Srijan babu the receptionist who received the said Rs. 900/ through debit card of the complainant returned the money back in cash and being a known senior person Srijan babu out of hesitation did not take any receipt from the complainant against such refund.” This fact is the admission of the O.P about receiving of Rs. 900/ .
It appears that the O.P has admitted about knowledge of her husband namely Srijan, when “was a boy of 15/16 years and a member of Balaka club……where the complainant was a coach of kho-kho.”The O.P has also admitted that this happening took place in presence of “receptionist, technical and non-technical stuff and in presence of all the patients who came there for their investigation.”This fact, as stated by the O.P could have been proved if the O.P could have brought Srijan babu, her husband and atleast one of the patients. This fact gives the opportunity of the commission to hold adverse inference against the O.P.
Admittedly, as it appears from para 4 of the affidavit in chief of the O.P that t5he complainant is a resident with distance of “only one minutes walk” from the residence of the husband of the O.P and the complainant is very much known to her husband for giving coaching to Srijan babu and other local boys since his boyhood . Admittedly the complainant appears to be an aged person with reputation on the basis of the certificate dated 06.09.1991, certificate issued by S.P Hooghly dated 13.09.91 and another certificate issued by Inspector of Police Sirampore dated 19.03.1991.
All these evidences abundantly go without saying that the petitioner is a man of reputation. Acts and deeds of the O.P , as is evident from the above discussions as well as performances of the O.P has minimized the same in the eye of the persons present in the clinic giving the complainant opportunity to be entitled to get the relief.
In view of the facts stated herein above this commission is of considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.
Hence,
ordered
that the complaint case no. 177 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.
The petitioner do get return of Rs. 900/- with 9% interest per annum since 27.11.2018 and also do get compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 3000/-towards litigation cost.
All these quantum of money to be paid within 45 days from date failing which the complainant is at liberty to take recourse to law.
Op is directed to deposit Rs. 3000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of D.C.D.R.C., Hooghly for the poor litigant.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
