O R D E R (ORAL)

        This Revision Petition, by Sports Injury Centre, Safdarjung Hospital and its functionaries, is directed against the order dated 22.8.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in RP/185/2016.  By the impugned order, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Thmappa Kotgiri vs. G.M. Central Railway -  (2007) 4 SCC 596 and a decision of this Commission in Pravat Kumar Mukherjee & Anr vs. Ruby General Hospital – II (2005) CPJ 35, the State Commission has dismissed the Revision Petition preferred by the Petitioner herein.  The said Revision Petition had been filed by the Petitioners, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 23.5.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in CC/306/2015, whereby the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Complaint itself was rejected by the District Forum.  The stand of the Petitioners before the lower Fora was that since the Petitioner Centre provides facilities to the patients free of charge, its patients could not be treated as ‘consumers’, as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

        When on 17.3.2017, the case came up for motion hearing, while issuing notice to the Respondent/Complainant, the Petitioners were directed to place on record the Rules and Regulations governing the functioning of the Petitioner Centre.  On a subsequent date, it was stated that the said Centre does not have any codified Rules and Regulations governing its functioning but it functions as a part of the Safdarjung Hospital, which in turn is governed by the guidelines issued by the Central Government.  Nevertheless, an affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Director of the Petitioner Centre, wherein while reiterating that treatment at Safdarjung Hospital, a Central Government Hospital in Delhi, is provided free of charge and the Sports Injury Centre, being its part, the same procedure, as followed in Safdarjung Hospital with regard to the charges for diagnosis etc., are charged at Government rates on PPP model but the said facilities are optional and a patient can avail of the services after making necessary payments for such facilities at CGHS approved rates.

        In view of the afore-stated stand on affidavit, we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the Fora below do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, particularly in light of the observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shanta & Ors. – (1995) 6 SCC 651.

        In view of the above, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

        Since the incident giving rise to the filing of the Complaint, allegedly took place sometime in the year 2014, we request the District Forum to take a final decision in the Complaint as expeditiously as practicable, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as it is stated by Counsel for the parties that the evidence is already complete and only oral arguments are to be addressed.