##PAGE1##

1 [SC/27/FA/364/2025 ]

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA, AT MUMBAI

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/ 27/ FA/ 364/ 2025 (Arisen out of order order dated 07/ 04/ 2025 passed by the Additional

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, at Bandra in complaint No. CC/ 36/ 2025)

Suman Prabhat Upadhyay Through her husband

Prabhat Vijay Upadhyay Residing at - Room no. 6, Near Pujari General Store, Samta Sidhhi Vinayak

Society, Filter Pada, Aarey Colony Road, NITIE, Mumbai -4000 87 ....APPELLANT

V/ s

1. Dr. Dharmendra V. Dubey, BREATH CARE HOSPITAL,

At-: N-1/ 4, Girivihar C.H.S Ltd., Anand Nagar, Opp. Sai Baba Mandir, Vasai (W), District- Palghar- 401202, Maharashtra

2. BREATH CARE HOSPITAL, At-: N-1/ 4, Girivihar C.H.S Ltd.,

Anand Nagar, Opp. Sai Baba Mandir, Vasai (W), District- Palghar- 401202, Maharashtra ....RESPONDENTS

Before : Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma : Presiding Member Hon’ble Dr. Mrs. Nisha A. Chavan : Member

For Appellant : Advocate Shri. A.K. Moiely a/ w Advocate Shri. Rupesh Jambawadekar

************************************************************************************

ORAL ORDER

(07/ 04/ 2026)

Per - Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma : Presiding Member

1. Advocate Shri. A.K. Moiely a/ w Advocate Shri. Rupesh Jambawadekar

are present along with husband of the appellant. Advocate for the

2 [SC/27/FA/364/2025 ]

appellant submitted that the consumer complaint was dismissed at the stage of admission itself. He submitted that the opponents have committed deficiency in service by giving negligent services. Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant i.e. original complainant was suffering from TB and doctor had given wrong treatment of Asthma and allergy, due to which condition of the

complainant deteriorated.

2. Perused the order of the District Commission. The District Commission has dismissed the complaint on 07/ 04/ 2025 without giving opportunity to the complainant to prove her case. We have perused the order of District Commission. The District Commission

has mentioned in its order as follows,

“we did not find anything which can be considered as medical negligence. There is no co-relation with the treatment taken at Dr. Dubey's clinic and treatment at other two hospitals. Hence, the documents of Ramkrishna Mission Hospital as well as Asha Polyclinic & Sheetal Nursing Home filed by the complainant will not be suffice to determine that there is any medical negligence at the hands of Dr. Dubey during the treatment. Hence, the alleged claim of medical negligence against Dr. Dubey does not sustain prima facie on the basis

of the documents submitted by the complainant.”

3. After going through the order, it appears that the District Commission

has not gone through the complaint and the attached documents thoroughly and has hurriedly reached to the conclusion that there is

3 [SC/27/FA/364/2025 ]

no any medical negligence. It is a well settled principle of law that at the stage of admission of a consumer complaint, the District Commission is required to examine whether the complainant is a “consumer” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, whether the complaint is filed within limitation, and whether the complaint falls within the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of the Commission. If these prerequisites are satisfied, the complaint ought to be admitted and notice should be issued to the opposite party. The District Commission is not expected to adjudicate the merits of the

complaint at the stage of admission itself.

4. In the present case, the complainant Smt. Suman Prabhat Upadhyay

had availed the medical services of the Respondent No.1 Dr. Dharmendra Dubey at Breath Care Hospital, and therefore she is undoubtedly a “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5. In the present case, the complainant Smt. Suman Prabhat Upadhyay

had availed medical services of the Respondent No.1 Dr. Dharmendra Dubey at Breath Care Hospital and is the