B Kasi Reddy vs T Viswarupachari

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.1.2014 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 364/2013 B. Kasi Reddy Vs. Dr. T. Viswarupachari by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner met with an accident on 9.8.2009 and sustained injury to his right leg. Complainant took treatment for 5 days at Government hospital, but as there was no recovery, took services of OP/respondent as inpatient on 14.8.2009 and was treated upto 18.8.2009 and complainant paid Rs.12,000/ - for treatment. It was further submitted that as OP was negligent in treatment complications developed and complainant got himself discharged on 18.8.2009 and approached Dr. V.V. Raghava Reddy who referred him to NIMS Critical Care Unit where he was treated from 20.8.2009 to 6.10.2009 and incurred expenses of Rs.1,00,000/ -. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint, denied receipt of Rs.12,000/ - and denied any negligence on their part and further submitted that complainant got himself discharged as he intended to go to higher institute and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission committed error in holding complaint barred by limitation and learned District Forum committed error in holding that no payment was paid by the complainant to OP and committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be admitted.

COMPLAINANT in his complaint mentioned that payment of Rs.12,000/ - was made by complainant to OP, but OP denied receipt of any payment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked to show any receipt of payment made by complainant to OP. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no receipt can be placed on record, but private hospitals never treat patients without taking money. This argument is devoid of force because in a number of cases free services are rendered by private hospitals to known and needy persons and in the absence of proof of payment made by complainant to OP as consideration for services obtained, complainant does not fall within purview of consumer.

IT is not disputed that complainant was admitted in OP'' s hospital from 14.8.2009 to 18.8.2009 and he himself was discharged on 18.8.2009 and later on was treated in another hospital upto 6.10.2009. It is also not disputed that complaint was filed on 2.2.2012. Learned State Commission rightly observed that complaint ought to have been filed upto 6.10.2011, but complaint was filed after 4 months and no application under Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act has been filed for condonation of delay in filing complaint and learned State Commission rightly observed that complaint was barred by limitation.

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.