Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/230/2020

Suman Sharma W/o Deepak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Civil Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Bhavdeep Singh

22 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.230 of 2020

Date of Instt.:24.07.2020.

Date of Decision:22.02.2021

 

Suman Sharma wife of Deepak resident of house No.244/12, Gali no.1, Azad Nagar, Kurukshetra District Kurukshetra, Haryana.                             

                                                              …….Complainant.       

                                                   Versus

 

1. Civil Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula through CMO.

2.Dr.Rajeev Kapoor, In-charge Radiology Civil Hospital, Panchkula.

3.Dr.Richa Gupta, Gynecologist, Civil Hospital, Panchkula.\

4.Dr. Sangeeta Singhal, HOD (Gyne) Civil Hospital, Panchkula.

5. Smt. Kusum Lata Nurse of Civil Hospital, Panchkula.

6.Smt. Vibha Gupta Civil Hospital, Panchkula.

7.Smt.Heena Civil Hospital, Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                     ….…Opposite parties.

 

                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before        Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                           

 

Present:      Sh.Bhavdeep Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Mukesh Sharma ADA for the Opposite Parties.

 

 ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Suman Sharma against Civil Hospital, Panchkula  others  etc., the opposite parties.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant  on 22.06.2020 approached the OP Nio.1 and at that time the child in womb of the complainant was alive as told and written in her report by the concerned doctor during checking of the child in womb. It is averred that the OPs have not provided any treatment to the complainant from 12:30AM to 7:AM and due to the sold negligence, carelessly and fault on the part of OPs, child in the womb has died, which was told by the OPs to the complainant prior to delivery and in this way there became a great danger to the life of the complainant. Thus, the complainant has alleged that child in the womb of the complainant has died due to negligence of the OPs. It is also stated that there after OP No.3 has in collusion with OP No.2 has prepared a false ultrasound report to save the other OPs.  Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint and claimed a compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- from the OPs.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OPs appeared and filed application u/o 7 rule 11 (a) & (d) of the CPC for rejection of the complaint. It is submitted that Section 2, clause 42 states  the definition of service according to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 No. of 35 of 2019  which means:

                   “Means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provisions of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing  construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charges or under a contract of personal service.”

                    Thus, it is stated that the above definition clearly goes to show that it does not include health care or doctors or public hospitals or any other who renders service without any charges whatsoever so the OPs cannot be made party against these submitted allegations.  Thus, it is alleged that the  application of the OPs may kindly be accepted and the complaint filed by the  complainant may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs being devoid of merits.

4.                The complainant filed reply to the said application. It is submitted that the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of Section 2 sub section 6 clause vi which reads as the services which are hazardous or likely to be hazardous to  life and safety of the public when used, or being offered by a person who provides any service and who knows it to be injuries to life and safety.  It is submitted that the complainant is consumer. The complainant a v ailed the services of the OPs which very much come under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. Thus, it is prayed that the said application filed by the respondents may kindly be dismissed.

 

5.                We have heard the learned­ counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                The learned counsel for the applicants/OPs argued that service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provisions of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing  construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charges or under a contract of personal service. Reliance has been placed on the  law laid down in case  Major Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others  Revision Petition no.4734 of 2012.

 

7.                On the other hand  learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of Section 2 sub section 6 clause vi which reads as the services which are hazardous or likely to be hazardous to  life and safety of the public when used, or being offered by a person who provides any service and who knows it to be injuries to life and safety.  It is submitted that the complainant is consumer.  It is also argued that the  complainant availed the services of the OPs which very much come under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. M/s Spring Meadows Hospital and another Vs. Harjol Ahluwalia and another  Civil Appeal No.7708 with 7858 of 1997 decided on 25.3.1998, Dr. Indu Sharma Vs. Indraprashta Apollo Hospital and another2015(3) CPJ 454, S.C.Mathur and others Vs. All India Institute  of Medical Science and others 2006(3) VPJ 414.

8.                    After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the law given by them, we are of the view that the no doubt the complainant  got treatment  from the OPs, which is a Government Hospital and at that time treating medical officer was posted in the said Government hospital. Therefore, admittedly and evidently, the Ops are government body (Government servant) and they are giving services free of cost. As per Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(o), Doctors and Hospitals, who render services free of charge to every person availing service-would not fall within the ambit of ‘service’ under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Payment of token amount for registration purposes only would not alter the position in respect of such doctors and hospitals-complaint-dismissed.

         

9.                Therefore, the treatment given by the OPs does not fall within the ambit of service as defined u/s 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection  Act and this on this ground also the complaint was liable to be dismissed. Therefore, relying upon the authority given by the applicant, we accept the present application for dismissal of the present  complaint. The authorities given on behalf of the complainant are not applicable to the facts of the present complaint. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to avail the remedy before the Civil Court.

10.               In view of our above discussion, we accept the application filed on behalf of applicants/OPs for dismissal of the present complaint. Consequently, the main complaint is hereby dismissed. However, complainant shall be at liberty to avail the efficacious remedy available before the competent court. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:22.02.2021                                            (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                     President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                              Member.