DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C.C. No. 249/2024    

P R E S E N T                :- Sri Daman Prosad Biswas………President.

                                       :- Sri.  Abhijit Basu………………. Member.

Order No.01

Dated.20.09.2024

Today is fixed for admission hearing. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present. Case is taken up for admission hearing. Heard Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. Perused the petition of complaint and copy of documents.

Complainant filed this case against the O.Ps i.e. JNM Hospital. He alleged that Complainant was admitted before the O.P Hospital on 20/12/2023 owing to her final stage of pregnancy. Complainant gave birth a baby girl on 21/12/2023.

On the very next date Complainant observed that new born baby was not comfortable for moving her left hand and she was transferred to SNCU and thereafter Complainant’s baby was referred to Orthopedic Department of SSKM Hospital and thereafter again shifted to Neurology Department of SSKM Hospital. But no satisfactory result was found.

During hearing Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued before this Commission that due to negligence on the part of the doctor of O.P hospital aforesaid baby is still now suffering.

He further argued that at the time of admission Complainant paid Rs. 2/- in favour of the O.P Hospital. As the O.P took Rs. 2/- from Complainant so Complainant is the consumer.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant referred the document i.e. annexure no. 27 and submits that in the right hand top it has noted that Complainant paid Rs. 2/-.

On perusal of the said document we find that Naihati State General Hospital, Naihati Uttarayan issued the same on 15/12/2023 whereas as per statement of the Complainant she got admission before the O.P on 20/12/2023. Accordingly we do not find any nexous in between said document and document issued by O.P during treatment of the Complainant.

Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./

: :  2  : :

C.C. No. 249/2024

We find from the record that O.P is a Government Hospital. In this context we have carefully gone through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 SCC (6) 651. We find that Hon’ble Supreme Court held:-

“Service rendered at a Government hospital/health centre/dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service - is outside the purview of the expression 'service as defined in Section 2(1) (o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital/nursing home would not alter the position.”

Accordingly it is clear before us that the service which rendered by O.P / JNM Hospital, Kalyani is not the service as per Consumer Protection Act. The payment of token amount for registration purpose would not alter the said position.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in mind the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court we are of the firmed view that the present case is not maintainable before this Commission.

Hence,

                   It is,

                             Ordered,

That the present case be and the same is dismissed being not admitted.

Member                                            President