ORDER NO. 4 DT. 05.10.10

HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. P.K.SAMANTA, PRESIDENT  

        Appellant is present in person.  OP is absent on calls.  Heard the Appellant.  Judgement is delivered as under :-

          This is an Appeal by the Complainant/Appellant against the judgement and order dt. 26.5.10 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-1, Kolkata, in Case No. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 32/2006. 

         The complainant received a minor injury on his head on 17.1.06 at about 8.15 P.M.  He himself rushed to the OP No. 1 namely Sri Aurobinda Seva Kendra, for treatment of his said injury.  It appears from the various documents annexed to the complaint that he was attended by the casualty physician of the aforesaid Seva Kendra and was treated for the said minor injury by stitching the cut and necessary dressing of the wound that was suffered by him.  The complainant was further prescribed medicines as per the prescription given by the attending physician.  He was also advised to do xray of his skull.  It is not in dispute that the complainant has become completely fit after the aforesaid treatment.  It has not been alleged in this complaint that because of any deficiency in service of the attending physician of the said Sri Aurobinda Seva Kendra in treating his minor injury as aforesaid he is suffering from any complications.  It has only been alleged in this complaint that the name of the said attending doctor has not been disclosed to the complainant and he has been charged with fees of Rs. 170/- at the first instance and Rs. 30/- on the second instance on 19.1.06. 

Considering the above complaint and upon perusal of the records of this case as also the affidavit on evidence filed by the respective parties we are of the view that the complaint is absolutely frivolous.  The complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service by the attending physician except that his full name has not been disclosed to him.  It has nowhere been established that the said OP No. 1 namely Sri Arobinda Seva Kendra, was obliged to render free services for treating the complainant for minor injury suffered by him.  It has also not been established that the charges as above received by the said OP No. 1 for treating the minor injury suffered by the complainant are either excessive or unreasonable. 

We are, therefore, of the view that the complaint has no basis whatsoever.  Accordingly, we are in full agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum that the complainant failed to prove any case of medical negligence and/or any deficiency of service on the part of the OP No. 1 in the treatment of minor injury of the complainant.  The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.