JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant Nagaraj against Opposite U/section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to pay total amount of Rs. 61,000/- with regard to CT Scan charges, treatment expenses, compensation amount for deficiency in service, for harassment, mental agony etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he took his brother by name Shivaraj to Shivam Hospital, Raichur on 26-02-07, Dr. Shivaraj Patil of the said hospital advised the complainant for to get CT Scan of the brain and referred him to approach the opposite hospital. He went to opposite hospital and requested to get CT Scan of the brain of his brother for which the opposite hospital authority collected Rs. 1,100/- from him for to get CT Scan of the brain and asked him to take report by the evening. But they have not given report but only gave films of the CT Scan, on the ground that no radiologist available in the hospital to give the CT Scan Report. He took the CT Scan films and shown to doctor of Shivam Hospital. The said doctor told him that he cannot understand anything from the said films. Therefore on the next day he approach the opposite hospital to give report but they have not given such report. Therefore he took his brother to one doctor Adoni with films, he charged Rs. 500/- and gave oral report. Therefore his brother was referred to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, his brother was treated in the said hospital by expending huge amount for various tests. Hence opposite is found guilty under deficiency in its service and therefore he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. Opposite appeared in this case through his Advocate, filed written version by denying all the allegations made against the hospital by the complainant. As per the case of opposite, one Shivaraj came to hospital with another attendant and requested to take CT Scan of his brain, authorities of the hospital clearly stated to the Shivaraj and his attendant that there is no radiologist available in the hospital to give immediate report. However CT Scan films will be sent to Gulbarga or Hyderabad and they will get report within 8 to 10 days. The said Shivaraj and his attendant agreed and got CT Scan, therefore they took films for further advise. After receipt of the report Shivaraj collected the said report from the opposite hospital. Hence there is no deficiency in service on its part. This complaint filed by the complainant who is not a consumer under the meaning and definition of Consumer Protection Act. Shivaraj is healthy person, he is alive, there is no reason for this complainant to file this complaint on behalf of Shivaraj. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.<br /> <br /> 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he is the proper person to file complaint as defined U/sec. 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act and he is the consumer as defined U/sec. 2(1)(d) of the said Act and thereby he will establish the deficiency in service on the part of opposite in the light of allegations made by him.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?<br /> <br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (2) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed <br /> to pass the final order for the following :<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1 & 2:-<br /> <br /> 6. In order to prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1, additional affidavit-evidence of him was also filed. Documents Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-22 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the Administrative Officer of the Opposite was filed who is noted as RW-1. Affidavit-evidence of Assistant Manager of opposite was filed who is noted as RW-2 and affidavit-evidence of one Channabasayya was filed who is noted as RW-3. Ex.R-1 marked. Parties have filed respective interrogatories in the light of their affidavit-evidences and answer to the said interrogatories by respective parties.<br /> <br /> 7. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced by them with the interrogatories raised and reply given for those interrogatories by the respective parties, the main point for consideration would arise by us is as to whether the present complainant is the proper person to file this complaint under the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(b) of the C.P. Act and whether the present complainant is a consumer as defined U/section 2(1)(d) of the said Act and whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of this opposite, in the light of the allegations made in this complaint within the meaning and definition of 2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act.<br /> <br /> 8. In instant case complainant is not the person who got examined the CT Scan in the opposite hospital by paying its fees, his brother by name Shivaraj got examined the CT Scan in the opposite hospital. Documents Ex.P-22 out patient counter issued by opposite hospital discloses that Shivaraj paid the amount of Rs. 1,100/- towards CT Scan, his age was shown in it as 26 years, complainant himself shown the age of his brother in his complaint as well as in the affidavit-evidence as 27 years. Under these circumstances the proper person to file the complaint is Shivaraj and not by this complainant Nagaraj. There are no evidences out coming either in the form of affidavit-evidence or in the form of documentary evidences to show that the said Shivaraj was unable to came to this Forum for to file the complaint against opposite for alleged deficiency in service. The said Shivaraj not filed any kind of affidavit-evidences in support of the allegations made by Nagaraj in this complaint. The service availed from the opposite is Shivaraj and he paid the consideration amount for the service availed by him to opposite. This complainant is no way connected to service availed of Shivaraj from opposite. In the light of the said circumstances, we are unable to accept that this complainant is a proper person to file the complaint as defined U/section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act and present complainant is not at all a consumer as defined U/sec. 2(1)(d) of the said Act. He cannot raise consumer dispute before the Consumer Forum, under the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(c) of the said Act, as such we are of the clear view that, the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite for alleged deficiency in service, and thereby the present complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs, as prayed in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos.1 & 2 in Negative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> <br /> 9. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This present complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. <br /> <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 23-09-09)<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />