Jaganarayan Lal Vs Doctor Girija Tiwari
- This case was heard by the Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian
- Just because the appellant is the Karta of Joint HinduFamily and the brother-in-law of the pregnant woman, it does not make him beneficiary in any services which is served by the respondent.
- The issue of maintainability of the complaint is the root issue of any case.
Background of the case
- The appellant was the brother-in-law of Kiran Srivastava who was four months pregnant when she was taken to the respondent’s clinic for treatment.
- The “Karta” of the Joint Hindu Family filed a consumer complaint for deficiency in service against the clinic.
- In his complaint, he mentioned that as being the Karta of Joint Hindu Family, he availed the services for consideration on behalf of his sister-in-law.
- The question thatarose in this case was that whether the appellant could file the consumer complaint for deficiency in service against the respondent for the treatment of his sister-in-law
- The appellant argued that since his brother was a Constableand he was the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family, he had availed the service for consideration on behalf of his sister-in-law. He argued that due to this reason his complaint was maintainable.
- The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint of the Karta.
Findings of court
- The word “complaint” and “consumer” is defined under Section 2 (1)(b) and Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
- The Bench, while referring to the provisions of this Act, stated that complainant meant any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promise.
- The Court held that the brother-in-law of the pregnant woman would not be a beneficiary in any services which was served by the respondent. Also, there was no proof that he had paid any consideration or that he had promised to pay such consideration to the respondent. The only thing mentioned in the complaint was that the appellant was the “Karta” of the Joint Hindu Family and that was the only reason that he could file a complaint against the respondent.
- The Court held that being the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family did not entitle him to avail the services of the respondent. The aspect of Joint Hindu Family did not extend to treatment pregnant woman.
- The issue of maintainability of the complaint was the main issue of the case. The court dismissed the appeal.
Hope you find the snippet informative.
1) Who is the Karta in a Joint Hindu Family?
2) What is the definition of complaint under Consumer Protection Act?