VINEET MEHROTRA Vs. GIRIJESH MANI TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only issue involved in this revision is whether Girijesh Mani Tripathi would come within the meaning of consumer as against the revisionists Dr. Vineet Mehrotra and Dr. Bhasker Mull both of whom were appointed Medical Officers in a Government Hospital/medical College?

(2.) Complaint was filed by Girijesh Mani Tripathi alleging that he went to the hospital after being injured in an accident for treatment when reference was made to B. R. D. Medical College, Gorakhpur where two applicants (Revisionists) were entrusted to treat him. It is alleged that he had paid Rs.60 and, therefore, on the strength of the authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble N. C. D. R. C. and the recent decision of the Hon'ble N. C. D. R. C. (NC), Haryana State through Civil Surgeon, Hissar and Anr. V/s. Mrs. Guddi, 2004 3 CPR 126 the complaint should proceed on merits.

(3.) It transpired that on receiving notice both the revisionists applied for a issue to be decided as a preliminary one on the ground that the complainant would not come within the definition of consumer. Receipt of Rs.60 has been filed by the opposite party along with the papers. It was a payment for room on part paying basis. Mr. B. K. Upadhayaya was afforded opportunity to place evidence, if any, in the complaint whether there was anything otherwise than what the receipt indicates. Mr. Upadhayaya confined his argument that since Rs.60 were paid, therefore, it must be taken spent towards the treatment.