RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.3198 of 2006

Jagdish Kumar Bajpai, 107/181,

Pandit Basant Kumar Bajpai Road,

Nehru Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.)                    …….. Appellant.

Versus

1- Union of India, Ministry of Health,

    Welfare & General Health Services,

    New Delhi through its Secretary.

2- Incharge Medical Officer,

    R.K. Nagar Dispensary, CGHS,

    Kanpur.

3- Additional Director,

    CGHS Services, 117/617.

    Pandu Nagar, Kanpur.                          .…Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Jugul Kishor, Member.

None for the appellant.

Sri K.K. Shukla, Advocate for the respondents.

Date        28.11.2014

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- The appeal was taken up for hearing on 27.10.2014. None responded on behalf of the appellant on that date also. There was no application either. Sri K.K. Shukla appeared on behalf of the respondents and informed us that the appellant Sri Jagdish Kumar Bajpai has expired and application for substitution has not been moved and, therefore, the appeal stands abated. It was also submitted that the appellant filed the

(2)

complaint against the Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Health, Welfare & General Health Services,     New Delhi, Medical Officer Incharge, R.K. Nagar Dispensary, CGHS, Kanpur and Additional Director,     CGHS Services, Kanpur although the appellant was not their consumer and, therefore, the complaint case no.852 of 1997 was not maintainable before the Ld. DCDRF, Kanpur Nagar. The Forum below took all these facts before dismissing the complaint no.852 of 1997 on 24.7.2006. There is no remiss, illegality or irregularity in the same.

We have gone through the records in the light of the aforesaid arguments. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant/complainant was a retired government employee and was entitled for free medical treatment for himself and his family from Government hospitals. His identity card number was 310 P. On 27.7.1997 his wife Smt. Syama Devi felt certain breathing problem and consequently, she was taken to CGHS, R.K. Nagar, Kanpur where she was initially attended by the M.O.I.C. and was subsequently referred to Madhuraj Nursing Home as the condition of the patient was very poor. The aforesaid Nursing Home was recognized by the CGHS as a Specialized Centre. She was treated there by Dr. D.P. Agarwal, Cardiologist and was discharged on 2.8.1997. The appellant/complainant paid a sum of Rs.6,400.00 towards bills submitted by Nursing Home. From the records, it also transpires that Smt. Syama Devi was provided medicines free of charges for a week by the

(3)

CGHS, R.K. Nagar, Kanpur and thereafter, she was referred to Helot Hospital, Kanpur (Medical College) on 13.8.1997 where she was attended by one Dr. Saxena. It has been submitted that Dr. Saxena was not a heart specialist; and he prescribed medicines for Depression and Blood Pressure only  It has further been submitted that Smt. Syama Devi expired on 5.9.1997 due to wrong treatment adopted at the Helot Hospital. The death was due to medical negligence committed by the Medical Officer Incharge of the CGHS, R.K. Nagar, Kanpur and at the Helot Hospital and accordingly, complaint case no.852 of 1997 was filed for redressal of his grievances. After hearing both the parties and on the basis of the facts, circumstances and evidence available on record, the Forum below arrived at a conclusion that there was no medical negligence on the part of the respondent/OPs and, therefore, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, the instant appeal was filed.

It is admitted case that the wife of the appellants was actually treated by Dr. D.P. Agarwal of Madhuraj Nursing Home and Dr. Saxena of Helot Hospital. The Medical Officer Incharge, CGHS, R.K. Nagar, Kanpur only referred her to the Nursing Home and subsequently, to the Helot Hospital (Medical College) for better treatment. No fees was charged and the reference was to higher medical centre. Therefore, we fail to read any remiss or malfeasance on his part. The patient was not attended by the Secretary, Ministry of Health, Welfare & General

(4)

Health Services, Government of India and Additional Director, CGHS, Kanpur at any time and yet they were made parties unnecessarily.

Besides this, admittedly the appellant/complainant got free medical services and no fees was charged by the respondents for her treatment. At no point of time, a relationship of consumer and service provider was established between them. Therefore, in view of the ruling laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Santha & Ors., III(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) at para 35, the Forum below rightly dismissed the complaint. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it.

The appellant has been reported to be dead and no application has been moved for substitution. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also stopped attending the Commission. Besides this, the impugned judgment and order was pronounced on 24.7.2006 and certified copy of the judgment was provided to the appellant on 27.7.2006. However, the appeal was filed on 15.12.2006. Thus, it is barred by the period of limitation for more than 110 days also.

Consequently, the appeal, being meritless, is dismissed as barred by limitation. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with law.

         (A.K. Bose)                               (Jugul Kishor)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri

ST G-1 Court No.5