State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Arvind Singh Bisht vs Parakh Imaging Centre on 11 December, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 109 / 2014
Sh. Arvind Singh Bisht S/o late Sh. Chandan Singh Bisht
R/o Village Falseema, Patti, P.O. ITI
Tehsil Almora, District Almora
through President / Secretary, Samajik Jagrati Sanstha
Geeta Enclave, Phase - 2, Near Gandhi Ashram
Ramri Aan Singh, P.O. Fatehpur, Haldwani
Nainital
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
Parakh Imaging Centre
G.B. Pant Marg, Subhash Nagar
Near Guru Teg Bahadur School, Nainital Road
Haldwani, District Nainital
......Respondent / Opposite Party
Sh. Mahesh Chandra Mathpal, Representative of the Appellant
Sh. Vijay Pal Tiwari and Sh. Rajesh Kumar Devliyal, Learned Counsel for
Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 11/12/2014
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 118 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 05.07.2012, Sh. Chandan Singh 2 Bisht, father of the complainant suffered headache and fell down and he was sent back by his office to his home. The father of the complainant was taken to Base Hospital, Almora, from where he was referred to Dr. Susheela Tiwari Memorial Forest Hospital, Haldwani. The complainant took his father to Pant's Cardio-Diabetic Centre, Haldwani, where Dr. Dinesh C. Pant started the treatment of the complainant's father. Dr. Dinesh C. Pant advised for C.T. scan of the brain of the complainant's father. The C.T. scan of the complainant's father was conducted at opposite party - Parakh Imaging Centre, Haldwani on 07.07.2012 and Dr. Dinesh C. Pant prescribed medicines to the patient according to the said C.T. scan report. In the said report, it was mentioned that the patient is not suffering from any disease. It was alleged that on 12.07.2012, the condition of complainant's father deteriorated, whereupon he was admitted in Dr. Susheela Tiwari Memorial Forest Hospital, Haldwani. It was also alleged that in the said hospital, the doctors got the C.T. scan of the complainant's father done and from the C.T. scan report, it was revealed that the complainant's father is suffering from brain hemorrhage. It was further alleged that the opposite party has issued a false report, on account of which the condition of the complainant's father had worsened. Thus, alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital.
3. Before the District Forum, the opposite party moved an application, stating therein that the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer" and, as such, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum by impugned order dated 31.05.2014, dismissed the consumer complaint, thereby observing that the 3 complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer" and he has no right to file the consumer complaint.
5. We have heard the representative of the appellant as well as the learned counsel for respondent and have also perused the record.
6. The perusal of the consumer complaint shows that at the time of filing of the consumer complaint, Sh. Chandan Singh Bisht, the father of the complainant was alive. The complainant has not filed any authority to show that his father had authorised him to file the consumer complaint on his behalf. The complainant has also not filed any Power of Attorney executed by his father in his favour, thereby authorizing him to file the consumer complaint on his behalf and doing the needful in the matter. Since no such document was filed on record and hence it can not be said that the complainant falls under the definition of "consumer" as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it also can not be said that the complainant had a right to file a consumer complaint on behalf of his father, when the medical negligence has been alleged by the complainant in regard to the C.T. scan report of his father issued by the opposite party and when at the time of filing the consumer complaint, the father of the complainant was alive.
7. In the case of Amita Sharma Vs. B.H.E.L. and others; II (2013) CPJ 505 (NC), the consumer complaint was filed by Smt. Amita Sharma on behalf of her husband. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that there is nothing on record that the complainant's husband had been incapacitated in any manner or was prevented in any manner whatsoever from filing the consumer complaint and that the complainant had not been authorized by her husband to file the consumer complaint on his behalf. It was held by 4 the Hon'ble National Commission that the complainant is not a consumer. In the case of Ram Niwas Soni Vs. Vaish Model Sr. Sec. School and others; II (2013) CPJ 396 (NC), the consumer complaint was filed alleging excess amount of fees charged in admission. The consumer complaint was filed by the complainant on behalf of his major son without any authorization. It was held that the complainant has no locus standi to file the consumer complaint and that the complainant did not fall within the purview of consumer.
8. However, it has now come on record that the father of the complainant has expired and is not alive, but since at the time of filing the consumer complaint before the District Forum, he was alive and hence it can not be said that the District Forum has erred in dismissing the consumer complaint on the ground that the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer". The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. However, if the appellant so wishes, he may file a fresh consumer complaint before the District Forum narrating all the facts and in that event, he may seek exclusion of the time for the purposes of limitation in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute; (1995) 3 SCC
583. No order as to costs.
(SMT. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K