STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/19/1062 (Arising out of order dt.05/10/2019 passed by the DF Central Mumbai in CC/19/224)

Mr.Yogesh Babulal Telge R/at-New Dhobi Ghat Rajak Society Captain Prakash Pethe Marg Cuffee Parade, Colaba .......Appellant/org.complainant Mumbai 400 005 Versus

1.Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika Nair Hospital Dental College Dr.A.L.Nair Road Mumbai Central Mumbai 400 008 ……Respondents/org.OPs

2.Ms.Dr.Snehal Patil at Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika Nair Hospital Dental College Dr.A.L.Nair Road Mumbai Central Mumbai 400 008 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Adv.Aditya Kharkar i/b. Dr.U.P.Warunjikar for appellant Adv.Abhijeet Mangade for respondents FINAL ORDER (Dt.27/03/2025)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade – President

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, Central Mumbai in consumer complaint no.CC/19/224 on 05/10/2019, the original complainant has preferred this appeal.

2. The complainant had filed the consumer complaint against the opponents/

respondents herein for medical negligence. It was contended that the appellant had availed the treatment from the respondents for ‘pain and ulceration in mouth’. The respondent no.2 had prescribed steroid named “wysolone” without informing about the side-effects thereof. It was contended that the said medicine was prescribed without any supportive medication like calcium, etc. and the same has led to “bilateral avascular necrosis of femoral head”. The same resulted in expensive surgeries like “Stem Cell Grafting” & “Left Total Hip Replacement”. The appellant took treatment in Breach Candy Hospital, Prince Ali Khan Hospital, Regenerative Medical Services Pvt.Ltd. and spent huge amount for his treatment. It was alleged that due to the wrong medicines given by the respondents, the appellant suffered health problems. Hence, he filed the consumer complaint before the Ld.District Consumer Commission.

3. The Ld.District Consumer Commission heard the complainant/appellant herein and perused the documents produced along with the complaint. It was held by the Ld.District Consumer Commission that the appellant had filed 5 receipts towards various charges, which they could not decipher. It was also observed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission that they are unable to conclude that for what purpose the payment was made by the appellant. It was also held that the judgment relied upon by the appellant was not relevant and hence, it was not considered. It was also held that the opponent is a Government Hospital, therefore, it was not established that the appellant was a ‘consumer’. It was also held that whatever treatment taken by the appellant in Jaslok Hospital had no connection with the treatment taken by the appellant with respondent nos.1 & 2. It was also held that the complainant took a treatment in the year 2010 and thereafter, he took treatment in various hospitals and again went to the hospital of respondent. Therefore, it was not established that how the respondent was responsible for different treatments and the alleged disease suffered by the appellant. Accordingly, the complaint came to be dismissed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission.

4. It was contended that the complaint was dismissed without giving chance to the complainant/appellant to lead evidence. Similarly, it was also contended that the appellant had filed receipts issued by the respondent no.1 for the treatment but it was not considered by the Ld.District Consumer Commission. It was also contended that the appellant was a ‘consumer’ and he had taken extensive treatment in the hospital of the respondent. The appellant has also produced on record the number of documents, which were not considered by the Ld.District Consumer Commission and passed the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondents submit that the problem arose to the appellant in the