Delhi

East Delhi

CC/308/2021

ANITA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PLATINAM LAB - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2023

ORDER

Case No.      :         308/2021

Date            :         15.05.2023

 

Present        :         Complainant in person

 

Arguments were heard on the last date of hearing.  Matter is fixed for consideration today.  It is the case of the complainant inter alia that her son was ailing and was admitted in Malik Radix Health Care Hospital where doctor advised him for CECT Test and accordingly complainant visited the Lab of the OP.  It is further submitted that the said test requires the patient to drink some water before the test and for this Lab Tech. Mr. Ankit gave open bottle of water and a glass to the ward/her son, for drinking water but surprisingly the bottle was not filled with water but was filled with thinner and after taking first sip, her child vomited and since he was crying and his mouth was burning the complainant immediately checked the bottle which is filled with thinner and even technician confirmed the same and thereafter the complaint was lodged at 100 and an FIR was lodged against OP and complainant then had to take her child to another hospital i.e. Moolchand Hospital where her son was treated as she has spent Rs.3,50,000/- for the said treatment on account of negligence of the OP and she filed the present complaint against OP. 

 

Heard at length. 

 

In the entire complaint it is no where written that what was the consideration paid by the complainant to the OP Under section 2 (7) of the CPA-2019, the word ‘Consumer’ has been defined as follows:-

 

7) "consumer" means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, or.........

 

7) (ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. 

 

Complainant has specifically mentioned that he has not paid any consideration to the OP.  Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that in absence of any consideration the complainant does not qualify to be a consumer under Consumer Protection Act-2019.  Complaint is therefore rejected. 

File be consigned to Record Room.