BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 367/2003 Filed on 14.10.2003<br /> Dated : 29.08.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> P. Asokan, Chief Executive, S.P. Fort Hospital, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> (By adv. S. Mohandas)<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No.2, II Floor, Malankara Buildings, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. M. Nizamudeen)<br /> <br /> 2.The Manager (Administration), Kerala Automobiles Ltd., Aralummoodu, Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. P.. Ahamed)<br /> <br /> 3.Sulaiman(Kerala Automobiles Ltd.), Valiavila Veedu, Athiyannoor, Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> 4.Rasheeda Beevi, Valiavila Veedu, Athiyannoor, Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> (By adv. S. J. Bhojraj)<br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 19.06.2008, the Forum on 29.08.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA: MEMBER<br /> <br /> The Chief Executive of S.P Fort Hospital has filed this complaint against the opposite parties alleging the following: The 3rd opposite party is the employee of the 2nd opposite party and as per the tie up between the complainant and 2nd opposite party, its employees and dependents are to be given treatment in the complainant's hospital, the charges of which will be paid by the 1st opposite party as the insurer for the employees of the 2nd opposite party. Accordingly the 4th opposite party who is the sister of 3rd opposite party was admitted in the complainant's hospital on 21.10.2002 in Orthopaedic department and she was given all the necessary treatments including total (L) hip joint replacement, for which a total charge of Rs. 71901/- was incurred. After discharging the patient, the complainant as the beneficiary of the mediclaim policy claimed the treatment charges of Rs. 71901/- from the 1st opposite party but it was refused on unreasonable and baseless grounds which amounts to deficiency in service and hence this complaint has been enunciated.<br /> <br /> The opposite parties 3 and 4 remain exparte. Opposite parties 1 & 2 has filed their versions. 1st opposite party in their version has specifically taken a contention that the complainant is not a consumer vis a vis the 1st opposite party as there is no hiring of service for consideration between the 1st opposite party and the complainant. The complainant has not hired the services of the 1st opposite party in any manner whatsoever. Hence this complaint is not maintainable, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and hence contended that the question of maintainability be heard as a preliminary issue. <br /> <br /> Heard both parties on the issue of maintainability in detail. The complainant prima facie has not hired the services of the opposite parties for consideration. Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act shows that a person claiming himself as 'consumer' should satisfy amongst others, three conditions namely (1) the service should have been rendered to him, (2) the service should be hired by him and (3) for hiring the service he should have paid consideration in the manner envisaged in Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act. The materials on record and the pleadings in the complaint reveal that the complainant is not the person who had hired the services, but the 3rd and 4th opposite parties have availed the service of the complainant. The complainant alleges that there was a tie up between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party, though the 2nd opposite party has denied the same in their version. On going through the entire facts of the case we are of the view that the complainant has not hired the services of the opposite parties for consideration as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act a consumer is not only the person who avails or hires of any service for consideration, but also who is the beneficiary of such services. In the instant case by no stretch of imagination, the complainant could be considered as a beneficiary of services also. Such being the position, the complainant cannot be regarded as coming within the definition of 'consumer' falling within Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act so as to entitle him to maintain the complaint before this Forum. If at all there were any breach of conditions of the tie up between the parties, the complainant could approach civil court for remedy and so far as this Forum is concerned, the complaint could be entertained only if the complainant was a consumer. <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is found not maintainable before this Forum and hence the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate authority for his grievances if any. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 29th August 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD, <br /> President<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />