Haryana

StateCommission

CC/175/2016

BALINDER ALIAS BAGGA - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.LIBERHAN

21 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.175 of 2016

                                                      Date of Institution: 01.07.2016                   Date of Decision: 21.09.2016

 

1.      Complaint Balinder @ Bagga S/o Sh.Ruldu Ram, aged of 25 years, working as Labourer, resident of village Kurar, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal, Haryana.

2.      Master Vishal Minor son aged about two years, of Sh.Balinder # Bagga, through his father Balinder @ Bagga, as his next friend.

…..Complainants

Versus

 

1.      The state of Haryana through its Secretary, Health Department, Haryana, at Panchkula.

2.      The Chief Medical Office, I.G.S.Hospital, Kaithal.

3.      Dr.Seema, Medical Officer, I.G.S. Hospital, Kaithal.

4.      Dr.Renu Chawla, Medical Officer, I.G.S.Hospital, Kaithal (Mob. No.09812144406).

5.      Dr.Gopal Krishan Bansal, Medical Officer, I.G.S.Hospital, Kaithal.

6.      Neelam, Staff Nurse, I.G.S.Hospital Kaithal on night duty on 02.11.2014.

7.      The doctor on duty at CHC Siwan, on duty on 03.11.2014.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.S.K.Liberhan, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

 It is alleged by the complainants that their mother was taken to Government Hospital, Kaithal for delivery, but, treatment given by them was not upto mark  and that is why she expired.  Doctors and nurses at the duty did not attend her properly.  They be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- as mentioned in the complaint.

2.      Arguments Heard. File perused.

3.      As per averments raised in the complaint deceased was treated at Government Hospital free of charge. So the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”) are not applicable in the present case as per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.4734 of 2012 titled as Major Singh Vs.State of Punjab decided on 05.11.2014 wherein reliance has been placed upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Indian Medical Association Vs.V.P.Shantha & Ors., 1996 (1) Consumer Law today-1 (S.C.).  It is no where alleged in the complaint that any payment was made at the aforesaid hospital or it was not extending services free of charge, so the complaint is not maintainable before Consumer Commission and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

September 21st, 2016

Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.