PARVEEN SHARMA Vs. ANNE HEART AND MEDICAL CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 29.1.2008 passed by Learned State Commission in Appeal Nos. 588 of 2007, 567 of 2007 & 564 of 2007- Dr. Deepak Kaura Vs. Parveen Sharma & Anr., Government Medical College & Hospital Vs. Parveen Sharma & Ors. and Parveen Sharma Vs. Anne Heart Medical Centre & Ors. respectively; by which while allowing appeal of opposite parties, appeal of complainant was dismissed and order of the District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner vide letter dated 7.2.2003 was declared successful in written examination for the post of Sub Inspector. He also qualified physical test and was to undergo echo cardiography test in opposite party No. 3/ respondent No. 3- Hospital. Opposite party No. 3 advised him to get test done from PGI but as Department of PGI had closed, opposite party No. 3 directed- petitioner to get tests done from opposite party No. 1 & 2/respondent No. 1 & 2. He paid fee of Rs. 1,200/- and test was conducted and as per report, there was 3 mm Patent Foramen Ovale- hole in the heart. On the basis of this report, he was declared medically unfit. Again complainant approached PGIMER on 14.6.2003 and got echo cardiography test done and as per report dated 16.6.2003, there was no hole in the heart. Complainant again approached the Selection Committee but with no result. Complainant filed writ before Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon'ble High Court directed that complainant be examined by a Review Medical Board. Review Medical Board examined the complainant and found him medically fit and he again appeared for interview but as there were only three posts in general category, he was not selected. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party No. 1 & 2 resisted complaint and submitted that test report given by them was perfectly correct. It was further alleged that complainant suppressed test report of TTE, test advised by the PGI and also did not place report of the Review Medical Board and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party No. 3 resisted complaint and submitted that as services were provided free of charge, complainant is not a 'consumer'. It was, further, submitted that neither complainant was examined by opposite party No. 3 nor referred by opposite party No. 3 to opposite party No. 1 & 2 but after obtaining report by the complainant from opposite party No. 1, he visited opposite party No. 3 and on his request the Reader of Department of Medicine, just endorsed the same report but never declared complainant unfit and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complainant and directed opposite party No. 1 & 2 to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- and opposite party No. 3 to pay Rs. 1.00 lakh to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- as litigation cost. All the parties preferred appeals against order of District Forum before the State Commission and Learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeals of opposite parties but dismissed appeal of complainant and set aside order of the District Forum and dismissed complaint against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Proceedings against opposite party No. 1 & 2 abated as LRs of respondent No. 2 who was owner of respondent No. 1 were not brought on record and respondent No. 1 had closed.