Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, counsel for the appellant is present. He draws my attention to the decision of the Honle Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Thamappa Kotgiri Vs. G.M. Central Railway & Ors. [(2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 596]. Learned counsel points out that in the first mentioned decision, the issue whether railway employee is a consumer qua the railway hospital, has been directly addressed and decided. Learned counsel points out that the State Commission has dismissed the complaint in limine on the sole ground that there is no consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the OPs. This issue has been decided in the case of Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors.[1996 6 SCC 651],wherein it was held that: imilarly, where, as a part of the conditions of service, the employer bears the expenses of medical treatment of an employee and his family members dependent on him, the service rendered to such an employee and his family members by a medical practitioner or a hospital/nursing home would not be free of charge and would constitute erviceunder Section 2(1) of the Act. The same view has been reiterated by Honle Apex Court in the other decision, as cited by learned counsel, in the case of Laxman Thamappa Kotgiri Vs. G.M. Central Railway & Ors. [(2007) 4 SCC 596], which is as under:- here is no dispute that the hospital in question has been set up for the purpose of granting medical treatment to the railway employees and their dependants. Apart from the nominal charges which are taken from such an employee, this facility is part of the service conditions of the railway employees. V.P. Shantha case has made a distinction between non-governmental hospital/nursing home where no charge whatsoever was made from any person availing of the service and all patients are given free service (vide Para 55(6) at p. 681) and services rendered at government hospital/health center/dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing of the services and all patients are given free service (vide Para 55(9) on the one hand and service rendered to an employee and his family members by a medical practitioner or a hospital/nursing home which are given as part of the conditions of service to the employee and where the employer bears expenses of the medical treatment of the employee and his family members (para 55(12) on the other. In the first two circumstances, it would not (sic) be free service within the definition of Section 2(1) (o) of the Act. In the third circumstance it would (sic not) be. Since it is not in dispute that the medical treatment in the said hospital is given to employees like the appellant and his family members as part of the conditions of service of the appellant and that the hospital is run and subsidized by the appellant employer, namely, the Union of India, the appellant case would fall within the parameters laid down in para 55(12) of the judgment in V.P. Shantha case and not within the parameters of either para 55(6) or para 55(9) of the said case. It is true that the decision in State of Orissa Vs. Divisional Manager, LIC relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents appears to hold to the contrary. However, since the decision is that of a smaller Bench and the decision in V.P. Shantha case was rendered by a larger Bench, we are of the opinion that it is open to this Court to follow the larger Bench which we will accordingly do. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint Case No. 29/13 passed on 21-02-2013 is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the State Commission for afresh consideration keeping in view the observations of the Honle Supreme Court in the two decisions cited above in the two orders. The appellant is directed to appear before the State Commission on 10-07-2013. The appeal is accordingly disposed of