ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Honble Mr. Justice P.C. Misra, President;
Mr. Biswanath Rath, Smt. Mrinalini Padhi, Members
DEBRAJ & ORS.—Petitioners
versus
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.—Opp. Parties
C. Case No. 249 of 1992—Decided on 16.9.1994
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - DEFINITION OF CONSUMER - PATIENT IN GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL - NOT A CONSUMER - DISPUTE NOT MAINTAINABLE - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986, SEC. 2(d).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging that due to the negligence of the treating physicians in a Government hospital, their deceased daughter, Padmalaya, died. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs. 7,45,000/-. The opposite parties, including the Doctors and the Superintendent of the hospital, denied the allegations and challenged the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that the petitioners were not consumers and the dispute did not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that a patient treated in a Government hospital would not be a consumer within the meaning of the definition given in the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the dispute raised by the petitioners would not be a consumer dispute and the case was not maintainable.
Issues: Whether a patient treated in a Government hospital is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that in order to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, a person must have hired or availed of services for consideration. The Court noted that the petitioners did not allege to have paid any consideration for the treatment provided in the Government hospitals. The Court also referred to the decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Madras High Court, which held that patients in Government hospitals are not consumers under the Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the complaint as not maintainable, holding that the petitioners were not consumers and the dispute did not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
Mr. Justice P.C. Misra, President—The question of maintainability which is taken up as a preliminary point is disposed of as follows:
It was urged by the learned Counsel appearing for opp. parties 3, 5 & 6 that for the purpose of determining as to whether the petitioners are consumers and in that matter whether the dispute raised by the petitioners is a consumer dispute within the meaning of the Act, the averments made in the application alone may be looked into. In other words, the question of maintainability of the case was required to be decided on the case pleaded by the petitioners alone without referring to the disputed questions of fact.
2. The petitioner No. 1 is the father of deceased Padmalaya whose husband is petitioner No. 2. Petitioners 3 & 4 are the minor son and daughter of Padmalaya aged 3 years and 1 year respectively, who are represented through their father-guardian, the petitioner No. 2. The petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs. 7,45,000/- for the death of Padmalaya alleging that she died due to the negligence of the treating physicians. According to the petitioners, Padmalaya was admitted to the Headquarters Hospital at Polangir for treatment of breathlessness with pain in chest on 6.5.1993. She was kept under the treatment of Dr. Jagannath Panda and Dr. Chittaranjan Das, who diagnosed heart disease to be “Anaemic heart patient”. While in the hospital blood transfusion was given to her on 15.5.1992 and 18.5.1992 and she was also given some other injections. On 19.5.1992 at about 8 a.m. Dr. Jagannath Panda discharged her from the hospital though the same was protested by the petitioners and other attendants that she had not recovered fully by then. During the same night on 19.5.92 Padmalaya became restless and some erruptions all over her body appeared. Some parts of her body also turned bluish for which in the morning of 20th of May, 1992 it was reported to Dr. A.N. Mishra, A.D.M.O. who advised to take the patient to the Out-door. The Doctor in charge of the Out-door prescribed some medicines and advised that if the medicines prescribed by him do not respond she should be admitted to the hospital again. As her condition again thereafter she was admitted to the hospital at about 1 p.m. on that day. It is alleged that according to the opinion of the Doctors, this deterioration of the patient was due to clotting of blood following the earlier blood transfusion. The petitioners 1 & 2 insisted for referring the patient to V.S.S. Medical College & Hospital, Burla. But the treating Doctor (Dr. Jagannath Pande) declined to do so. As per the advice of the Doctor further blood for transfusion was arranged on 21.3.1992. But the same was not given to the patient. On 23rd of May she was given a bottle of salims mixed with other medicines. But it resulted in strong reaction with burning sensation all over the body. Dr. Pande then advised to take E.C.G. which was taken by Dr. Radheshyam Bhausink in the said hospital. Since the patient did not show any sign of improvement she was removed to V.S.S. Medical College & Hospital, Burla as, according to the petitioners, there was no co-operation from the authorities of Bolangir Hospital. At any rate, the patient reached Burla Medical at about 5 a.m. on 24.5.92 and she was under treatment of Prof. Bimal Kar. She was given treatment as prescribed by the Doctor and was ultimately removed to the Cardiology Department on 27.5.92. By that time both the hands of the patient were paralysed. By continuous treatment her left hand was almost cured, but right hand did not show much improvement. There was a suggestion for amputation of her right hand, but the same was not possible in view of the condition of her body, as per the opinion of the Doctors. From 8.6.92 the condition of the patient become very serious which, according to the Doctors’ opinion, was due to the clotting of the blood in the brain. Inspite of all treatments that were given thereafter, the patient breathed her
1. I (1992) CPJ 259 (NC). (Relied)[Para 6]
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.