KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.10/2023

ORDER DATED: 29.11.2024

(Against the Order in I.A.No.361/2022 in C.C.No.172/2020 of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONERS/3^rd& 4^thOPPOSITE PARTIES:

(by Adv. M.C. Suresh)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/1^st& 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTIES:

(by Adv. C.R. Suresh Kumar)

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

The revision petitioners are the petitioners in I.A.No.361/2022 in C.C.No.172/2020 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (for short the ‘District Commission’).

2.       The 1^st respondent herein is the complainant and the revision petitioners are the opposite parties 3 and 4 in the complaint.

3.       The 1^st respondent filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging medical negligence against the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties.  During the pendency of the said complaint, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.361/2022 before the District Commission requesting the District Commission to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable.  It is contended by the revision petitioners that since the revision petitioners are doctors working in a Government Medical College Hospital, where the treatment was given free of charge, the complainant cannot be a consumer and hence the complaint is not maintainable.

4.       The District Commission, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed I.A.No.361/2022, against which this revision petition has been filed.

5.       Heard both sides and perused the records. 

6.       It is not disputed that the revision petitioners were working as doctors in the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, during the relevant period.  Now the question to be considered is as to whether consumer complaint is maintainable against the doctors working in the Government Medical College Hospital, where treatment is given free of charge.

7.       The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that since the complainant paid Rs.300/-(Rupees Three Hundred only) towards treatment charges, the treatment given to the complainant by the revision petitioners was not free of cost and in the said circumstances, the case in hand would clearly fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) and consequently, the order impugned is perfectly justified.

8.       Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has argued that since the treatment given by the revision petitioners was free of charge, the complainant would not fall within the ambit of consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act (Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019), and consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant cannot be sustained.

9.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nivedita Singh vs Asha Bharti (Dr.) and Others, reported in 1 (2022) CPJ 69 (SC) : 2021 KHC 6825,  held in paragraph 6 as hereinunder:-

“6.  A reading of the above para shows that a medical officer who is employed in a hospital renders service on behalf of the hospital administration and if the service as rendered by the Hospital does not fall within the ambit of 2(1)(0) of the Act being free of charge, the same service cannot be treated as service under S.2(1)(0) for the reasons that it has been rendered by medical officer in the hospital who receives salary for the employment in the hospital. It was thus concluded that the services rendered by employee - medical officer to such a person would therefore continue to be service rendered free of charge and would be outside the purview of S.2(1)(0) of the Act”.

10.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 550 : 1995 (6)  SCC 651,  held that the service rendered free of charge by a medical practitioner attached to a hospital/nursing home or a medical officer employed in a hospital/nursing home where such services are rendered free of charge to everybody, would not be “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.  The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital/nursing home would not alter the position.

11.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Hospital & Ors. Vs Manjit Singh & Anr., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 781, held that the doctors and hospitals who render service without any charge whatsoever to every person availing of the service would not fall within the ambit of ‘service’ under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. 

12.     The view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed by the National Commission in Dr. Kirandeep Kaur vs Beant Kaur & Ors., reported in IV (2023) CPJ 191 (NC) and Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital vs Lalan Prasad Sharma & Anr., reported in II (2023) CPJ 532 (NC).

13.     The above settled law makes it clear that if the treatment is given in a Government Medical College Hospital, where no money is charged for treatment, the service rendered to the patient cannot fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.  In this case, the cash receipt for Rs.300/-(Rupees Three Hundred only) produced by the complainant does not reveal the purpose for which the payment was made.  Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the said payment was for the treatment in the fertility unit.  Admittedly, the hospital where the complainant had undergone treatment was a Government Medical College Hospital and the revision petitioners were working there as doctors. 

14.  In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint filed against the revision petitioners cannot be sustained and consequently we set aside order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the District Commission in I.A.No.361/2022. 

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed, order dated 30.11.2022 in I.A.No.361/2022 in C.C.No.172/2020 stands set aside and the complaint as against the revision petitioners stands dismissed.

SL