ORDER

Ashok Kumar, President—This is an appeal filed before State Commission under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the judgment and order dated 31-07-2023 passed by District Consumer Commission, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 144/2017, Smt. Kamlesh V/s The Managing Director, Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital and another whereby the District Consumer Commission has dismissed complaint.

2. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Commission, Ghaziabad, the complainant has filed this appeal.

3. Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant appeared.

4. Notices have not been issued to the opposite parties as prima facie after perusal of the documents available on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant at the admission stage I do not find any good ground to issue the notices to the opposite parties and I deem it appropriate to decide the appeal on merits at the admission stage.

5. The relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the appellant/complainant Smt. Kamlesh has filed complaint before the learned District Consumer Commission against the respondents/opposite parties The Managing Director, Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, Ghaziabad seeking total expenses incurred in the treatment of the late husband Sri I.P. Sharma in the hospitals i.e. Rs.14,44,021/- alongwith compensation for the harassment and mental agony i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- for the medical negligence and deficiency allegedly committed by respondent/opposite party in not treating the patient for Ulceration and Fibrosis report dated 17-08-2016 prescribing further medicines which were not effective, neither doctor referred the patient to any other doctor/hospital or took steps for the operation of the Ulceration and Fibrosis.

6. The respondent/opposite party has filed written statement before District Consumer Commission wherein it has been stated that the false complaint has been filed by appellant/complainant. The respondent/opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service in treatment of appellant/complainant. The respondent/opposite party has given proper treatment to appellant/complainant with due diligence.

7. After having gone through pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record, the District Consumer Commission is of the view that the appellant/complainant has failed to prove negligence or deficiency of service in the treatment alleged to have been committed by the respondent/opposite party. As such, the District Consumer Commission has dismissed complaint vide impugned order.

8. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant at the admission stage itself.

9. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as records.

10. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant that the impugned order so passed by the District Consumer Commission is erroneous and bad in the eyes of law in as much as the same has been passed without application of mind and assailing the records.

11. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the District Consumer Commission without proper application of mind and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The entire approach of the District Consumer Commission in dismissing the complaint is erroneous and suffers from manifest error of both facts and law.

12. Learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant has further contended that the appellant/complainant has fully established negligence committed by respondents/opposite parties in treatment of her husband. The District Consumer Commission has wrongly dismissed the complaint. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission is against law as well as evidence.

13. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission shows that in the instant case expert medical opinion report has been obtained thr