1        Heard on admission. Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that complainant is the widow of Constable Harjinder Singh and is a pensioner under Punjab Govt. He contended that Punjab Govt. floated a scheme for cashless insurance of Punjab Govt. employees and pensioners and complainant applied under the said scheme at Ferozepur and the documents submitted by the complainant were sent to M.D. India Health care service opposite party No. 1 but no identity card was issued to the complainant and in the meanwhile, the complainant fell ill and was suffering from Hepatitis ‘C’ viral and took treatment from Dr. Jagdeep Singh of Nalanda Diagnostic center Amritsar from 2.4.2016 to 9.5.2016 and spent Rs. 40,500/- which she paid to the said doctor though the insurance scheme floated by Punjab Govt. was cashless but complainant paid the treatment fee as pressed by the doctor. He contended that complainant submitted bills for Rs. 40,500/- to the office of opposite party No. 1 Insurance Company through its field officer Arshdeep Opposite Party No. 6 who was having his office in the office of Deputy Commissioner Tarn Taran but he refused to accept the bill on the ground that identity card of the complainant is not attached with the documents. He further contended that opposite party No. 6 also sent e-mail to the office for sending the identity card of Kashmir Kaur but till date the same has not been issued nor any such card is received as the same has not been released so far. He further contended that finding no alternative, the complainant served a legal notice dated 5.12.2016 on the opposite parties for release of his claim but that also had no effect and hence complaint was filed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 40,500/- as medical claim besides Rs. 1,00,000/-  as compensation for harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.

2        We have gone through the file. It is admitted case of the complainant that he submitted documents under the insurance scheme floated by the Govt. but identity card has not been issued to her. It means no contract much less valid contract has come in to existence between the complainant and opposite parties particularly insurance company. Moreover, there is no allegation of the complainant that she paid consideration for cash less insurance applied by her. Any services availed by a person without consideration does not clothe him with the status of consumer. The term consumer is defined under Section 2(d) which reads as under:-

          2(d) “Consumer” means any person who-

(i)      buys any goods 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 user 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.

Or any person who 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 [10. Substituted by Act 50 of 1993. S.2, for “hires” (w.r.e.f.18.6.1993)] [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[ 11. Inserted by Act 62 of 2002, S.2 (w.f. 15.3.2013)] [ but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

The bare reading of definition of consumer shows that unless the article is purchased or services are hired or availed for consideration, the person who is availing the services is not a consumer under the Act and is not entitled to file complaint under the Act though he can proceed under other relevant laws if available to him. The complainant has not produced a single document which shows a valid agreement has come in to existence between the complainant or insurance company or complainant has paid any consideration for services allegedly hired or availed by the complainant. As such, complainant is not a consumer under the Act for the alleged services and is not entitled to file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act and complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

3        In the light of above discussion, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and is rejected. The original documents be returned to the complainant under proper receipt and identification and other documents be indexed and cosigned to record room.  

Pronounced in Open Forum

30.3.2017