National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. R.K. Gupta vs Dr. V.K. Gupta & Anr. on 14 October, 2011
OP 10/1998 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 223 OF 2011 Dr. R.K. Gupta E-315, Greater Kailash Part One New Delhi-110048 Complainant Versus 1. Dr. V.K. Gupta Senior Consultant Physician (General Medicine) Talwar Medical Centre M-139, Greater Kailash part Two New Delhi-110048 2. Talwar Medical Centre M-139, Greater Kailash Part Two New Delhi-110048 Opposite Parties BEFORE : HONBLE MR. S.K. NAIK, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Complainant : Complainant-in-person Pronounced on : 14th October, 2011 O R D E R
Heard the complainant, who has appeared in person and has argued his case, at length.
The complainant, Dr. R.K. Gupta, submits that he is a doctor with Post Graduate Degree in Medicine (Anaesthesiology) and is presently working as Senior Consultant in Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Medicine. His brother Dr. V.K. Gupta, who is opposite party no.1, is also a doctor with Post Graduate Degree in General Medicine.
The complainant, Dr. R.K. Gupta, contends that his brother Dr. V.K. Gupta, in order to rob him from his right of inheritance from the property of his deceased father, created a situation in which his mother sided and lived with his brother-opposite party no.1 and he had to stay away from his ancestral house with his family. The complainant, Dr. R.K. Gupta, alleges that his brother/opposite party no.1, Dr. V.K. Gupta, had a long term plan to eliminate his mother in a surreptitious manner so as to grab the entire ancestral property. In that process, he alleges that his brother had created sever toxicity in his mother over a period of time and did not allow her to consult any other doctor. When the degree of toxicity reached a level of no return, he took her to the Talwar Medical Centre, opposite party no.2, where she expired within few hours. The complainant vehemently argues that it was his own brother Dr. V.K. Gupta who has taken advantage of his own wrong/felonious act of torturing his mother by deliberately making her severely toxic and then causing her death by providing a lethal treatment. According to him, the motive of Dr. V.K. Gupta/opposite party no.1 was to interrupt the course of nature and deprive his mother from living a full life. He, therefore, contends that he should be given a compensation from Dr. V.K. Gupta/opposite party no.1 of the fair market value of the assets (Rs.9.00 Crores) of his mother cornered by him by virtue of a Will.
The prayer of the complainant in his complaint reads as under :-
(a) That this Honble court be pleased to make Dr V K Gupta pay me as compensation a sum of Rs Nine Crores (the fair market value of all the assets of my mother) for his having tortured my mother by deliberately making her severely toxic right under the roof of her own said property & then for having terminated her life by providing her a lethal medical treatment on 04-05-2011 at Talwar Medical Centre.
From a reading of the complaint as also from what has been stated before the Commission by the complainant himself, it is seen that at the center of controversy is an alleged unethical criminal act of a son being accused by his own brother for having caused the death of their mother allegedly to grab the property. Thus, the remedy of the complainant lies before a court of criminal jurisdiction and with regard to the inheritance of the ancestral property before a court of competent jurisdiction.
It is admitted by the complainant that at the time of his mothers death, he was neither living with her nor was he aware of her ailment/treatment nor did he approach the Talwar Medical Centre/opposite party no.2 for the treatment of his deceased mother. He has no claim/grievance against opposite party no.2.
The complainant has vehemently argued that being the legal heir of his deceased mother, he was entitled to pursue the complaint. No doubt, the legal heir of a complainant can maintain a complaint after the death of the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but in order to maintain the complaint the deceased has to be a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complainant is under the mistaken belief that in the capacity of being one of the legal heirs of his deceased mother, he would be entitled to maintain the complaint irrespective of his deceased mother not having availed any service or any grievance against the opposite parties. His mother was neither a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 nor had she filed any complaint.
The complaint, therefore, is completely misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission itself, however with the observation that the complainant may, if so advised, seek his remedy from appropriate court.
Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Mukesh