West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/133/2014

Shri Swapan Kumar Sengupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vidyasagar Institute of Health. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.133/2014                                                                                                 ate of disposal: 28/01/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                             MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                             MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

       For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff :  Self.

       For the Defendant/O.P.S.            : Mr. A. Das, Mr. G. Paria & Mr.R. Bhattacharya, Advocate.  

 

 

         Shri Swapan Kumar Sengupta, Mayapur, DVC Market,  P.O.-Talbagicha, P.S.-Kharagpur(L),

        Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..Complainant.

 

Vs.

          

1)Vidyasagar Institute of Health, Rangamati Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur;

2)Midnapore Municipality, Dist-Paschim Medinipur;

3)Technology Co-Operative Stores Ltd., (Distributors for Indane Gas), IIT Campus, Kharagpur, P.S. Kharagpur(T), Pin-721302, Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Ops.

                                                          

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member.

The case of the Complainant in a nutshell is that in the month of 1^st April 2008 the Complainant was admitted his father Late Pranab Kumar Sengupta at Vidyasagar Institute of Health, Rangamati of Paschim Medinipur and unfortunately died on the same day i.e. 1^st April 2008 at 6.25 p.m.

Vidyasagar Institute of Health issued death certificate in favour of Late Pranab Kumar Sengupta on their letter dated 01/04/2008. But according to the Govt. rules death certificate should be sent to the local municipality within one month from the date of death. Whereas the Institute neither sent nor registered the death report of the Complainant’s father to the local municipality in time. 

Contd…………..P/2

 

 

 

 

-( 2 ) -

   On 21^st November 2012 the Complainant went to the Midnapore Municipality for collecting the death certificate of his father after performing all formalities but at the time of submitting the prescribed form the person of birth and death section told the Complainant after 4 p.m. The Complainant will get the death certificate of his father. The Complainant waited up to 4 p.m. It is very unfortunate that when the Complainant asked for the death certificate the department of death and birth section informed that they could not issue the death certificate as the Vidyasagar Institute neither sent nor registrar the death report of the Complainant’s father. The Complainant immediately rushed to the Vidyasagar Institute of Health to enquire the matter. But the Institute did not pay any heed to request of the Complainant for nor sending the death report. The Complainant from and on 22^nd November 2012 went many times to the Institute and request them for sending the death report of his father. Inspite of sending the report of Institute harassed mentally and financially. For non availability of death report from the municipality could not issue the death certificate of the Complainant’s father. But in another way the municipality advised to the Complainant may get the death certificate of his father from the Medinipur Municipality. On 11/04/2013 the Complainant filled up a prescribed from the municipality issued the death certificate in favour of Late Pranab Kumar Sengupta.

  Having harassed mentally, physically and financially during long period,  the Complainant has no other way but to file this case before us for compensation and appropriate order. The Complainant claimed the compensation as there is complete deficiency of service of the Vidyasagar Institute of Health as per Consumer Protection Act.

Op. no.1 contested the case by filling W/O.

Op.no.3 Distributor’s for Indane Gas appears before the Ld. Forum and files W/O.

Op. no.2 Municipality files hazira but did not submit any W/O.

There is no deficiency of service on the part of  the Op. no.2 and 3. There lies no claim against Op. no. 2 and 3. The Op. no. 2 and 3 co-operative the complainant in various ways.

The Ld. Lawyer for the Op. no.1 argued that the present case is not maintainable and denies the entire allegation made against them. Ld. Lawyer in the W/O pare 1 to 21 denies all the facts and circumstances. In para 21 the Op. states that the complainant has intentionally falsely and gradually has claimed huge amount of compensation against VIH. Op. no.1 could not produce any documents in respect of the death report of it. Pranab Kumar Sengupta in their W/O verbally the Ld. Lawyer submits that ultimately the complainant got the death certificate of his father on scrutiny of official records it has appeared that the complainant did not submit any application required for his father’s death certificate. So Op. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case. As there is no deficiency of service of the Op. no.2 and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- prayed by the complainant is totally illegal.

Contd…………..P/3

 

 

 

-( 3 ) -

It is now for our consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed and the Op. prayed for the dismissal of complaint petition.

Points for decision

1)Whether the Op. is deficiency of service with the meaning of Sec 2 (1) (g) read with sec2 (1) (0) of the C.P.Act.

2)Whether the case is maintainable in its present form ?

3)What other reliefs the complainant is entitled to ?

Decision with reasons

      All the point is taken up for discussion. Complainant made his argument. The Complainant submits that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Op. no.1 as he fails to send the report and registrar the death certificate of the Complainant’s father in time before the Midnapore Municipality. There is no claim against the Op. no. 2 and 3. Apart from that the Op. no. 2 and 3 co-operate the Complainant. Complainant demand Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation as he harassed physically, mentally and financially. In support of his claim he has submitted all the Xerox copies as mentioned in his list of documents and at the time of hearing the Complainant has filed all the original copies of documents in support of his claim.

    We have considered the case. The conduct of the Op. no.1 is not justified.

    So the case is maintainable in its present form. The case is filed within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum.

    Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances it is held and decided the Op. no.1 should be liable for deficiency of service and there by the Complainant is merited for in terms of the prayer made in the petition of complain.

    Hence,

               Ordered,

                             that the case succeeds on contest against the Op. No.1.

     Op. is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only to the complainant on account of his deficiency in service within 30 days, failing which.

    The total amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. w.e.f. in the date of filing  this case till recovery of the entire amount.

    Contesting parties be supplied with copy of the Judgement free of cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

            Member                                                      Member                                     President

                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur.