Judgment

S.C. AGRAWAL

(1) LEAVE granted in Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 18497 of 1993 and 21755 of 1994. Delay condoned and leave granted in Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 18445- 73 of 1994.

(2) THESE appeals, special leave petitions and the writ petition raise a common question, viz., whether and, if so, in what circumstances, a medical practitioner can be regarded as rendering service under Section 2(l)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Connected with this question is the question whether the service rendered at a hospital/nursing home can be regarded as service under Section 2(l)(o) of the Act. These questions have been considered by various High courts as well as by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission).

(3) IN Dr A.S. Chandra v. Union of India , a division bench of the A. P. High court has held that service rendered for consideration by private medical practitioners, private hospitals and nursing homes must be construed as service for the purpose of Section 2(l)(o) of the Act and the persons availing such services are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1(d) of the Act.

(4) IN Dr C.S. Subramanian v. Kumarasamy , a division bench of the Madras High court has, however, taken a different view. It has been held that the services rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner or by a hospital by way of diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, would not come within the definition of service under Section 2(l)(o) of the Act and a patient who undergoes treatment under a medical practitioner or a hospital by way of diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, cannot be considered to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(l)(d) of the Act; but the medical practitioners or hospitals undertaking and providing paramedical services of all kinds and categories cannot claim similar immunity from the provisions of the Act and that they would fall, to the extent of such paramedical services rendered by them, within the definition of service and a person availing of such service would be a consumer within the meaning of the Act. CAs Nos. 4664-65 of 1994 and Civil arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21775 of 1994 filed by the complainants and Civils arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 18445-73 of 1994 filed by the Union of India are directed against the said judgment of the Madras High court.

(5) THE National Commission by its judgment and order in Consumer Unity & Trust Society v. State of Rajasthan has held that persons who avail themselves of the facility of medical treatment in government hospitals are not consumers and the said facility offered in the government hospitals cannot be regarded as service hired for consideration. It has been held that the payment of direct or indirect taxes by the public does not constitute consideration paid for hiring the services rendered in the government hospitals. It has also been held that contribution made by a government employee in the central government Health Scheme or such other similar Scheme does not make him a consumer within the meaning of the Act. Civil arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18497 of 1993 has been filed by Consumer Unity Trust Society, a recognised consumer association, against this judgment of the National Commission.

(6) BY judgment Cosmopolitan Hospitals v. Vasantha P. Nair , the National Commission has held that the activity of providing medical assistance for payment carried on by hospitals and members of the medical profession falls within the scope of the expression service as defined in Section 2(l)(o) of the Act and that in the event of any deficiency in the performance of such service, the aggrieved party can invoke the remedies provided under the Act by filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum having jurisdiction. It has a