Sri Partha Kumar Basu, Member

The complaint petition is filed under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 at the instance of the Complainant on the allegation of unfair trade practices on the part of the Opposite parties in a consumer dispute on medical service. The Complainant brought this case against OP1 hospital, OP2 Secretary of the hospital and the officials of state govt. from PO3 to OP7 on the ground of disservice.

The case of the complainant in gist is that he was admitted to the Hospital of OP 1 on 16.12.2021 for implantation of Pace Maker and the “Sastha Sathi Card”  of her wife covering the entire family including the complainant for a health coverage upto Rs.5,00,000/-. He alleged that after production of the “Sastha Sathi Card” , the OP 1 hospital became furious and refused the installation of Pace Maker under the said Scheme, since a huge amount of dues were pending for payment by those authorities. As such, the complainant had to undergo the surgery against full payment by cash for Rs.1,59,005/- by collecting from friends and relatives being a person belonging to low income group and doing labourers job. The complainant after release from hospital sent representations to the authorities from OP 3 to OP7   who neglected to respond or provide justice. The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice to OP 3 to OP 7 on 14.02.2022 for enquiry into the unfair trade practices adopted by the OP1 Hospital and to accept the Sastha Sathi Card for reimbursement to the complainant. But no positive result got yielded. Hence, the instant complaint is filed by the complaint against OP 1 to OP 7 seeking refund of the paid up billed amount of Rs.1,59.005/-  along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and appropriate cost. 

The complainant filed exhibits like copy of Sastha Sathi Card, medical bill documents, representations etc. and legal notice along with postal receipts and track reports to lend support to his petition as a prosecution exhibit. 

The OP 1 and OP 2 filed W/V stating inter alia that during the period of hospital admission when complainant was admitted on 16.12.2021, the OP Hospital was not accredited under NABH (Nation Accreditation Board of Hospitals) and as such the critical illness package was unavailable to the OP1 Hospital due to which the Sastha Sathi Card of the complainant for implantation of Pace Maker could not be given effect. The OP Hospital claimed that they tried to dissuade the patient party for not admitting the patient in their hospital for such reason, otherwise the whole bill amount at the hospital would become payable. But the complainant and his family stuck to the decision and got the Pace Maker implanted against full payment of the bill amount. The OP1 hospital Authorities denied and disputed about getting furious after seeing the Sastha Sathi Card as alleged. The said facility was not available in the Sastha Sathi Portal for the OP1 hospital for the said ailment. The OP1 and OP2  debated that having around 30 to 35 patients being registered under Sastha Sathi Scheme daily in their hospital, becoming furious about the said scheme is most unlikely. The OP1 hospital claimed having refunded an amount to Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on compassionate ground moreover. The OP1 also added that the authorities approved the said Sastha Sathi Scheme with inclusion of critical illness package option towards the OP1 Hospital to the beneficiaries on and from 03.01.2022 which was allowed in favour of the hospital as a special case. Since the desired package started subsequent to the treatment period of the complainant, hence there was no question of refusal to this complainant particularly, as the desired facility was inapplicable at the concerned point of time. 

The OP1 and 2 also contended that as per definition of consumer u/s 7(i) and 7(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the complainant is not falling under the definition of consumer since the Sastha Sathi Card is a scheme of benevolent service from the statutory authorities which is extended free of charges to it’s beneficiaries, availing of which does not make a person eligible as a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act 2019. The Sastha Sathi Scheme is a fully State Sponsored Social Welfare Scheme for the residents of the State which is available free of charges.  Moreover there must be a consideration money to become a consumer, which would have been absent in this case, had the complainant been availing the scheme. Having availed State Sponsored Welfare Scheme in the form of Sastha Sathi Scheme where consideration money is not applicable, the beneficiaries of the said scheme having not paid any premium and having no existence of consideration, becomes ineligible as a ‘consumer’.

The complaint case admitted on 10.05.2022 was contested by the OP 1 & 2 and proceeded on ex-parte basis against OP 3 to OP 7.   Evidence was adduced by both sides along with questionnaire and replies and W/V by OP 1 & 2. The W/V of OP 1 & 2 were allowed to be treated as evidence as per their prayer. Subsequently OP 3 to OP7 filed W/V along with prayer for non-maintainability of the complaint and condonation of delay in filing W/V and for setting aside the ex-parte order which was rejected on 17.01.2023. Hence the case was contested only by OP 1 & 2. The final arguments were heard in full advanced by the complainant, OP 1 and OP 2 on 03.10.2023.

The case was heard in full as advanced by both sides. There is no quarrel about the factum by both sides and no additional information came out from the questionnaire versus replies by either side. The records, documents and exhibits of the complaint case were gone through. It is observed that at the time of admission of the patient or implantation of Pace Maker, the OP1 hospital was not accredited by NABH. The NABH for Hospitals and Health Care Providers is a constituent board of the quality council of India in the field of medical services, set up to establish and operate accreditation programme for Health Care Organisation. It is a benchmark or a standard which was adopted by the local authorities for operating a benevolent scheme through identified hospitals and nursing homes. Services given free of charges by a hospital which is rendered to everybody in that group or under that scheme would not be service as defined in The Consumer Protection Act 2019. Further the payment of a token amount for registration purpose at the hospital would not also alter the position. Similarly services rendered at a Govt. Hospital / Scheme where no charges whatsoever are made from the person availing the services are deemed to be free service which is outside the purview of the expression “Service”.

Even if it is assumed hypothetically that having paid the consideration money of Rs.1,59,005/- making the complainant to be treated as a consumer, even then, there is no dispute against the medical services rendered by the hospital or any deficiency thereof on that account. Moreover having NABH accreditation is a recommendatory step but not mandatory for paid services, leaving the scope to patient party to avail the services or not. 

Under the above facts and circumstances, the complainant cannot be treated as a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 under the benevolent scheme of the state. 

The complainant has failed to make out a case.

Be that as it may, the complaint petition is hereby dismissed on contest.

There will be no order as to cost. 

The free copy of the order may be provided to both the parties as per CPR.