Haryana

Ambala

CC/41/2015

Rishi Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Medical officer - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

                       BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 41 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution         : 06.02.2015

                                                          Date of decision   : 22.11.2016

 

 

          Rishi Pal son of Sh. Dharam Singh resident of Village Khuda Kalan, The. &     Distt. Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.       Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Ambala City.

2.       Dr. Sudha, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Ambala Cantt.   

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

 

Present:       Complainant in person along with Sh. Jai Pal Chauhan, Adv.

                   Dr. Sudha Bajaj in person alongwith Sh. Kamlesh Bhardwaj, GP for                           the Ops.

                            

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that on 21.03.2014, the complainant got operation of his eyes vide outdoor ticket no. 13431 dated 21.03.2014 by Dr. Sudha, Medical Officer. Further stated that after 10-12 days of the operation, the complainant felt pain in his eyes and dark started coming before the eye operation which was conducted by the above said doctor and on 09.04.2014, the complainant again contacted the concerned doctor who assured that after some time the same will be all right and the operation is good but there was acute pain in the eye of the complainant. Due to eye problem, again the complainant went to the hospital and the complainant was asked to Dr. Shashi who has not attended me properly, then I reported the matter to C.M.O. who directed the complainant to report to Dr. Rajesh and After checking by Dr. Rajesh started my treatment and on 13.11.2014, he directed the  complainant to report in PGI Chandigarh. The complainant apprehend that due to wrong operation of his eye there may not be any ‘PEEK’ in his eyes and he may not suffer blindness due to the carelessness of the concerned doctor. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement submitting that

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-7 and close his evidence. Respondent tendered affidavits as Annexure R-X and R-Y along with documents as annexure R-1 to R-7 and close his evidence.

4.                Without going on the merit of the case, we are coming on the point that whether complainant fall under the definition of Consumer Protection Act or not? In view of the contents of the complainant that the complainant himself admitted that he got treatment vide out door ticket no. 13431 dated 21.03.2013 and complainant was checked and treated by Dr. Sudha, Medical Officer i.e. Op no. 2 and some medicine were purchased by the complainant from Pushpa Medicos, Ambala Cantt and the operation of the left eyes performed by OP no. 2. After operation some medicine was prescribed and same was purchased from the open market. We have perused the copy of the registration out door ticket perhaps complainant might have paid the registration fees which is generally 5/- or 10/- for obtaining the prescription card. It is also clear from the report card the complainant had taken the treatment from the respondent being the doctor employed government hospital has no charge anything from the complainant.

                   We have gone through the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(I) (d) (i) which reads as under:

                   “Consumer means any person who-

(i)                “buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or party paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any use of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”.

(ii)               “Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of ) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose)”

5.                We have also gone through the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case title India Medical Association Vs. VP Shanta 1996(1) Consumer Law today Volume-7 has held that the Medical Service render free of charges to everybody available the said services does not fall within definition of service. Further held that Medical Officer-employed for rending the medical service to the employer–is excluding being under a contract of service as per Section 2(1)(o) (c) (d) (g) and 14 of Consumer Protection Act. Hob’ble Supreme Court further held that service rendered at a government hospital/health centre/dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing of the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service – is outside the purview of the expression ‘Service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital.

                   Similarly in the present case, (complainant has not paid any consideration for his treatment to the Medical Officer of the Government hospital. Hence, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and hired the services free of charges. Hence, the complaint devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed with no order to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :22.11.2016                                              Sd/-

                                                                                (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                          Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member