Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President
CONSUMER UNITY & TRUST SOCIETY, JAIPUR—Appellant
versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.—Respondents
First Appeal No. 2 of 1989—Decided on December, 1989
The payment of taxes to the State does not constitute "consideration" for services provided by the State, including medical treatment in Government hospitals. Therefore, persons who avail themselves of medical treatment in Government hospitals are not "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - DEFINITION OF CONSUMER - HIRING OF SERVICES FOR CONSIDERATION - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND COVERAGE OF THE ACT - TAXES PAID TO THE STATE - WHETHER CONSIDERATION FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE STATE - MEDICAL TREATMENT IN GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS - WHETHER SERVICE HIRED FOR CONSIDERATION - WHETHER PERSONS AVAILING MEDICAL TREATMENT IN GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS ARE CONSUMERS - INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION "FREE OF CHARGE" IN SECTION 2(1)(O) OF THE ACT - WHETHER CONTRIBUTORS TO THE CGHS AND OCCUPANTS OF BEDS IN "PAYING WARDS" IN GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS ARE CONSUMERS - DUTY OF THE STATE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE AND ATTENTION - NEED FOR CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a consumer association, filed a complaint on behalf of a patient who suffered serious complications after undergoing an abdominal Tubectomy operation at a Government Hospital. The State Commission rejected the complaint on the ground that neither the patient nor her husband were "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) since they had not "hired" any services for consideration. The appellant challenged this decision before the National Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The National Commission held that the definition of "consumer" in the Act requires that a person must have "hired" services for "consideration" in order to be considered a consumer. The Court found that the payment of taxes to the State does not constitute "consideration" for services provided by the State, including medical treatment in Government hospitals. Therefore, persons who avail themselves of medical treatment in Government hospitals are not "consumers" under the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the payment of taxes to the State constitutes "consideration" for services provided by the State, including medical treatment in Government hospitals? 2. Whether persons who avail themselves of medical treatment in Government hospitals are "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the payment of taxes to the State does not constitute "consideration" for services provided by the State, including medical treatment in Government hospitals. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, which held that "a tax is the compulsory extraction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law and is not payment for service rendered". 2. The Court held that persons who avail themselves of medical treatment in Government hospitals are not "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court found that the definition of "consumer" in the Act requires that a person must have "hired" services for "consideration" in order to be considered a consumer. Since the payment of taxes to the State does not constitute "consideration", persons who avail themselves of medical treatment in Government hospitals have not "hired" services for "consideration" and are therefore not "consumers" under the Act.
Final Decision: The National Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the State Commission.
Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President — The Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur, the Complainant before the State Commission, Rajasthan in Complaint Case No. 1 of 1988 on its file, has preferred this appeal against the order of the State Commission dated January 3, 1989 rejecting the said complaint petition on the ground that it is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called “the Act”).
2. The complainant (appellant), which is a registered consumer association filed the said complaint dated August 19,1988 on behalf of one Smt. Sushila Devi, wife of Shri Brajmohan Pareta, resident of Lakheri, District Bundi. Smt. Sushila Devi underwent an abdominal Tubectomy operation at the Government Hospital, Kota as part of the Family Planning Programme. Unfortunately, she developed serious complications after the surgical operation as a result of which she has been reduced to the condition of a physically invalid person unable to move out of her hospital bed and suffering continuous physical pain as well as great mental agony which is shared by her husband and the whole family. It was alleged in the complaint that what was a simple surgery had resulted in such serious complications to the patient, on account of the negligence on the part of the Civil Surgeon, Kota who performed the operation and also due to lack of proper post operative care and attention. The complaint impleaded the State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Health and Medical Services, the Director, Medical and Health Services (Family Welfare), Government of Rajasthan and Dr. B.L. Gochar as opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in the petition. The prayer in the petition was for the award of an amount of Rs. 9,31,000/- to the aggrieved patient and her husband as compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the patient and also for directions being issued to the patient and also for directions being issued to the State Government for extending continued proper medical treatment to Smt. Sushila Devi and for payment of all bills relating to the purchase of medicines etc. required for her treatment in the hospital.
3. The State Commission considered as a preliminary issue the question of maintainability of the complaint petition. After discussing the said point in elaborate detail with reference to the definitions of the expressions “Complainant”, “consumer” and “service” contained in Section 2(1) of the Act the State Commission held that since neither Smt. Sushila Devi nor her husband had “hired” any services for consideration for the purpose of performing the operation for sterilization, neither of them can be considered as a “consumer” and since a complaint can be made by a consumer and/or a Consumer Association only for and on behalf of a consumer, the present complaint filed before the State Commission was not maintainable under the Act. The correctness of this conclusion has been challenged before us by the appellant in this appeal.
4. Having regard to the great general importance of the question raised in this appeal and the seriousness of the consequences that will follow from a decision thereon, we have given our very anxious and careful consideration to all aspects that are germane in determining this crucial point. Since the determination of the question essentially turns on the interpretation of the words used in the different clauses of the definition section of the statute in the light of the well recognised legal principles, we thought it necessary and proper to request Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Advocate of the Supreme Court to assist this Commission as amicus curiae. In response to the said request Shri Vaidyanathan took great pains to investigate thoroughly the legal and juristic aspects of the matter and addressed arguments before us on 1.9.1989 with his usual ability and erudition. He also submit written note of his arguments.
5. Before we proceed to set out the submissions made by the Counsel an
