Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 29
Instituted on : 16.01.2019
Decided on : 05.03.2024
Taniya through her guardian Parveen s/o Shri Partap Singh r/o House no.589-A/1, Shastri Nagar, Hissar Bye-pass, Near Neelam Atta Chakki, Rohtak-124001, Haryana. .
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Vaish Education Society, Rohtak-124001, Through its president Shri Vikas Goyal.
- Vaish Girls Sr. Sec. School, Rohtak-124001, through its Principal.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.S.K.Ranga, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Mukseh Parmar, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that the complainant namely Taniya who was studying in the institution of respondent and while playing Kho Kho game, the said Taniya slipped and fell, on marble floor. Due to this, two teeth of Taniya were broken and the same were not recoverable. The complainant requested the opposite parties that the complainant is poor person and there is much expenditure on the treatment of his granddaughter and it was not possible for him to get treatment of his daughter. Then the respondent asked the complainant to start the treatment of Taniya and the management will pay all the expenses incurred on her treatment. On assurance of the respondent, complainant started treatment of teeth of daughter Taniya. Doctor told the complainant that the treatment will be done in two terms. In first term Rs.12700/- were incurred on the treatment which were paid by the Management of the society. But the respondent refused the pay the expenses of Rs.18000/- of second term treatment. Complainant made representation in CM Window on dated 21.05.2019 but to no avail. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.18000/- on account of treatment of his granddaughter and also to pay Rs.200000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & financial loss and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the complainant is student of Vaish Girls Senior Secondary School Rohtak and she had fallen and is player of Kho Kho. It is further submitted that the complainant herself is admitting that she had slipped and had fallen while playing the game kho Kho. In these circumstances no one can be held liable for the same as she herself was at fault. First-aid was provided to the complainant and she has left the school in quite okay condition along with her grandfather. It is submitted that though the opposite parties are owing no liability or responsibility to pay any amount to the complainant, still as a goodwill gesture and to provide the financial assistance a sum of Rs.12000/- was paid to Dr.Suri by the opposite parties. At no point of time any assurance was given to the complainant by the opposite parties. The opposite parties are nowhere liable to pay the amount as is being claimed by the complainant on the account of alleged treatment of complainant. There was no fault or negligent on the part of opposite party in any manner. The said incident had taken place by chance due to no fault of anyone. Now the complainant and her family has started demanded the extra amount out of greed. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/E and also tendered affidavit Ex.CW2/B & documents Ex.CW2/B to Ex.CW2/G and closed his evidence on dated 09.03.2020. Ld. Counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on 06.04.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per the complainant herself an amount of Rs.12700/- incurred on her treatment of teeth has been paid by the opposite parties. Meaning thereby the expenses were paid by the department. But it has been further submitted in the complaint that the doctor had suggested that when the complainant will attain the age of majority, at that time the teeth crown will be fixed again and at that time complainant would have to spent Rs.18000/-. But the respondent has denied to pay the alleged amount of Rs.18000/-. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per our opinion when the complainant got injured and the treatment was given by the doctor, at that the time the expenditure was borne by the department . Now the question arises that whether the complaint is maintainable or not. As per our opinion no such cause of action arises to file the present case because merely a prescription of Dr. M M Suri BDS Surgeon, legal notice and photograph has been placed on record. We have minutely perused the prescription slip Ex.CW1/B and in this prescription it has not been mentioned that the tooth crown will be again re-fixed after attaining the age of majority. Moreover the incident happened in the year 2018 and the complainant got the age of majority in the year 2024 but the case has been filed earlier in the year 2019 i.e. without arising any cause of action. The complainant also moved an application before CM Window and as per ‘Action Taken Report’, it is itself submitted that there is a dispute between the parties regarding the exchange of money and no deficiency was found on the part of education society. It is also observed that after receiving the information regarding the injury caused to the child, the opposite party took immediate action and given first aid to the child. Thereafter the opposite party borne the expenses incurred by the complainant at that time and paid Rs.12700/- to the complainant. Incurring of further expenses is neither mentioned by the doctor in the prescription slip nor there is cause of action to file the present complaint. It is also observed that in the growing age of children they fall too many times while playing, running, cycling and in day to day activities and sometime suffer grievous injuries. It does not mean that every time the injury will be caused due to deficiency in service of one or other person or any institution. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on, the part of opposite party and the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
