IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Saturday  the 30th   day of  December, 2017

Filed on 04.02.2016

 

Present

1.  Smt. Elizabeth George (President)  

2.  Sri. Antony  Xavier (Member)

3.  Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)

in 

C.C.No.46/2016

between

 

      Complainant:-      Opposite Parties:-

Smt. Rajani 1. Dr. Anasuya Rajeev

W/o Omanakuttan Vrindavan

Kattilchira Kalarcode, Sanathanapuram.P.O

Punnapara.P.O Alappuzha

Alappuzha (Adv. R. Rajendra Prasad)

(Adv.Pradeep.P.S

Adv. Sheeba.S)   2.      The Superintendant

           Vandanam Medical College

                       Hospital, Vandanam.P.O

Alappuzha

 

O R D E R

SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)

 

 

The complaint is filed for getting compensation from the opposite parties.  According to the complainant due to the negligence of the 1st opposite party she suffered various complications after her cesareans delivery. More over the sterilization done also became failure. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint is filed. 

The 1st opposite party filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the 1st opposite party the service rendered by her to the complainant at TD Medical College at Vandanam was absolutely free of any charges and hence their service does not come under the provisions of the consumer protection Act. 

3.. The points for consideration is whether the complainant is a consumer?

4. It is an admitted fact that complainant was admitted in the medical college hospital Vandanam Alappuzha for treatment.  It is a settled law as per the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P.Santha III 1995 CPJ I (SC) where it is held that “Service rendered at a Government Hospital/Health Centre/Dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service – is outside the purview of the expression ‘service’ as defined in S.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.  In the instant case the surgery of the complainant was conducted by the 1st opposite party at the TD Medical College Hospital at Vandanam.  According to the complainant caesarian was conducted by the 1st opposite party and due to the negligence of the 1st opposite party she suffered serious complication after her surgery.  The 1st opposite party is a doctor of Medical College Hospital and the 2nd opposite party is the Superintendant Medical College Hospital where service is rendered at free of charge.  As per above decision free service  availed  from the Govt. Hospital is  outside the purview of the expression ‘service’ as defined in S.2(1)(o)  of the Act.   Hence the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the act.  

In the result the complaint is not maintainable and hence it is dismissed. 

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the date of 30th December 2017.

Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :                                     Sd/-Sri. Antony  Xavier (Member)      :

Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)            :

 

// True Copy //                                

By Order                                                                                                   

 

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

 

Typed by:- br/-  

Compared by:-