This revision is directed against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh dated 15.1.2016 in first appeal No.694/2013 whereby the State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum, Mansa that the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the complainant. 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner filed consumer complaint against the respondent/opposite party alleging that on being approached by the representative of the opposite party Shri I.P. Singh the complainant placed an order for the purchase of one voltage stabilizer priced at Rs.1,27,000/-. In furtherance of the order the complainant allegedly paid Rs.70,000/- in cash against the receipt and issued two cheques worth Rs.41,000/- and Rs.9,000/- drawn at State Bank of Patiala, Bhikhi in favour of the opposite party. The representative of the opposite party allegedly assured that the ordered stabilizer shall be installed within 15 days alongwith the warranty of two years from the date of installation. It is the case of the complainant that opposite party despite of having received the consideration amount failed to supply and install the stabilizer within the period of 15 days and also failed to provide the service as agreed. On the aforesaid allegations, the complainant raised the consumer dispute. 3. The respondent/opposite party in its written statement took the plea that the subject goods were sought to be purchased for commercial purpose i.e. running of the hospital. Therefore, in view of the exception carved out in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, the petitioner is not a consumer and has no locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. On merits, it was alleged that the complainant visited the opposite party in Ludhiana and placed the order for stabilizer MCB, electric outer panel worth Rs.1,27,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively exclusive of the other taxes. Against the said order the complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash and Rs.50,000/- by way of two cheques. It was pleaded by the opposite party that the ordered goods were to be delivered after manufacture. However, on 27.3.2012 the complainant visited the opposite party and took MCB and electric outer panel. When the complainant was asked to take the stabilizer the complainant stated that her purpose of purchasing stabilizer had been fulfilled and she was not in need of the stabilizer. The complainant, thus, prayed for refund of the balance amount after adjusting the cost of MCB and outer panel Rs.26,375/-. Other allegations on merits were denied. 4. The District Forum, Mansa on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence came to the conclusion that as the alleged goods were sought to be purchased in connection with commercial purpose, the complainant was not a consumer and had no locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal. The State Commission, however, concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. This has led to filing of the revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders of the Fora below are not sustainable because Fora below have failed to appreciate that the complainant is fully covered under the explanation to the definition of Consumer which gives a restricted meaning to the term “commercial purpose”. It is argued that the Fora below were misled by the fact that the complainant alleged in the complaint that she was running a hospital which actually meant that she was running a very small unit with a view to earn her livelihood by way of self-employment. 7. On careful consideration of the record, we do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is undisputed that the order for purchase of subject voltage stabilizer was allegedly placed on the opposite party in relation to the private hospital being run by the complainant. The stand of the petitioner/complainant is that the case of the petitioner is covered under the explanation to the definition of the term consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which gives the restricted meaning to the term “Consumer” for the purpose of definition of the term consumer. The explanation reads as under: - “For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment” 8. On bare reading of the above, it is clear that the petitioner can avail of the benefit of the explanation provided the petitioner is able to establish that she had purchased the subject goods exclusively for the purpose of earning her livelihood by way of self-employment. In order to find out if the case of the petitioner falls within the explanation to Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, it would be useful to have a look on the affidavit dated 12th October, 2016 of the petitioner Neelam Gupta. Some of the relevant extracts from the affidavit are reproduced as under: - “That in the year 2002 the petitioner set up her own private establishment in the name and style of Dr. Atma Ram Eye & General Hospital at Bhikhi, a small town having a population of just approx. 20,000 people in District Mansa, Punjab. That the aforesaid establishment is a sole proprietary concern with the petitioner and Dr. Anil Kumar Garg, her husband, a duly qualified MBS, DOMS (Post Graduate Diploma in Ophthalmology) as the primary consultants. That Dr. Sukhdev Singh M.s. (Gen. Surgeon), Dr. Suresh Kumar M.S. (ENT Surgeon) and Dr. Savita MD (Anesthesia) are the other three visiting consultants who are qualified in surgery, ENT, Anesthesia respectively. No salary or commission is paid to them. That there are 14 rooms, one for eye OPD one for Gynae OPD, other rooms are used for the visiting consultants OPD, OT, Labour Room, Staff Room, Pvt. Rooms & Wards. That there are 11 beds housed in 3 rooms. That the daily room rent/bed rent is charged very nominal @ Rs.100/- That OPD and treatment fee is charged @ Rs.50/-. That the other staff includes 2 Sweepers. That other than the OPD sessions, sometimes procedures for Ophthalmology, Gynae & Obstetrics, General Surgery, ENT Surgeries are performed which are normally day care therapies and patients are discharged on the same day.” 9. On reading of the above, it is ample clear that the petitioner had placed the order of the subject stabilizer for smooth running of her hospital. The running of hospital obviously is a commercial purpose particularly when that as per the admission of the complainant the hospital had Eye OPD, Gynae OPD rooms for visiting consultants, operation theatre, labour room, staff room besides admittedly there were 11 beds for the patients in the hospital and the complainant for running the hospital had hired four Nurses for patients’ care besides two Sweepers and she has also vailed the services of visiting Surgeons Dr. Sukhdev Singh, Dr. Suresh Kumar and Dr. Savita (M.D.) Anesthesia as also her husband who is a qualified doctor. From the above, it is clear that it is not a case of earning livelihood by means of self-employment but as a matter of fact, the petitioner/complainant in her hospital had given employment to several persons. Thus, under these circumstances, we do not find any fault with the finding of the Fora below that the petitioner is not a consumer as she had placed order for the subject stabilizer for commercial purpose i.e. in connection with the running of her hospital. 10. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the finding of the Fora below, which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the petitioner to avail of the legal remedy available to her by approaching appropriate forum. | 
