SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Honble Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President &
Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Member
PARAMJIT KAUR & ANR.—Complainants
versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.—Respondents
O.C. No. 40 of 1993—Decided on 3.12.1996

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainants :Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pardeep Mehta and Dr. Dharam Pal.

Family planning services under the All India Post Partum Programme are not consumer disputes as they are rendered free of cost to all patients, rich or poor.

Headnote:

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - JURISDICTION - SECTION 2(1)(d), 2(1)(o) - WHETHER FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES UNDER THE ALL INDIA POST PARTUM PROGRAMME CONSTITUTE CONSUMER DISPUTES - HELD, NO.

Fact of the Case:

Paramjit Kaur filed a complaint against the State of Punjab and Dr. Dharam Pal claiming compensation for negligently performing a tubectomy operation, resulting in the birth of a female child. The State Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that it was not a consumer dispute as the hospital was a government hospital and Dr. Dharam Pal was a government employee. The National Commission remanded the case with the direction to take evidence on whether charges were levied on patients in the hospital where the tubectomy was performed.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that family planning services under the All India Post Partum Programme are not consumer disputes as they are rendered free of cost to all patients, rich or poor. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Others, which held that services rendered at a government hospital/health centre/dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service is outside the purview of the expression "service" as defined in Section 2(l)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Issues: Whether family planning services under the All India Post Partum Programme constitute consumer disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that family planning services under the All India Post Partum Programme are not consumer disputes as they are rendered free of cost to all patients, rich or poor. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Others, which held that services rendered at a government hospital/health centre/dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service is outside the purview of the expression "service" as defined in Section 2(l)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed with no order as to costs.

ORDER

Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—The present complaint was filed by Paramjit Kaur against State of Punjab and Dr. Dharam Pal claiming Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation on account of negligently performing operation by opposite party No. 2 Dr. Dharam Pal for family planning (tubectomy). Subsequently, a female child was born on December 19,1990. A preliminary objection was taken by opposite party No. 2 that the dispute raised was not a consumer dispute as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, the opposite party No. 2 being an employee of the Government and the Hospital where he was working was a Government Hospital. The State Commission vide order dated August 17, 1993 dismissed the complaint and appeal was taken to the National Commission and the case stands remanded with the direction to take on record evidence as to whether in the Hospital where tubectomy was performed on the complainant, some charges were being levied on the patients and thereafter to decide the question referred to above. Both the parties were called upon to produce evidence by way of affidavits and documents on the point referred to in the order of the National Commission. The complainant produced his affidavit and some documents. The opposite parties also produced affidavits and some documents. State of Punjab was proceeded ex parte, however, subsequently was allowed to produce evidence, which was done. Arguments were heard. Since Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 was not available, he was allowed to produce arguments in writing. The same were filed and have been perused. At this stage under orders of the National Commission, parties were called upon to produce evidence on the point of jurisdiction. Such evidence parties have now led.

2. A hospital whether run by the Government or by private institution renders service to the patients primarily under three heads. Firstly, in the matter of diagnosis. The disease or ailment suffered by the patient is required to be identified and it is only then that proper treatment can be prescribed. Under this head physical checkup or clinical checkup followed by, if necessary pathological checkup and if necessary by X-ray, Ultra-sound and ECG etc. (use of electrical appliances are invoked). Under the same head would be the treatment of such identified diseases or ailments. Such treatment may again be sub-divided into two heads. Firstly by administering medicines or physiotherapy and secondly by surgery. The Notification issued by Punjab Government, fixing separate charges for the services rendered in the Government Hospitals has been produced on behalf of the complainant, genuineness of which is not disputed on behalf of the opposite party. Annexure A-5 is copy of the Notification dated February 3, 1971. Different fees to be charged from the patients are prescribed in this notification under different heads. The details are not considered necessary to be repeated. Suffice it to say that Head 'A' deals with private ward charges. Head 'B' deals with General Remarks (daily charges). Head 'C' deals with Visit Fees, Head 'D' deals with Operation Fees, Head T' deals with Laboratory Fees. Annexure 1 attached to these rules provides for revised fees for operation of different organs of the body. Annexure-2 provides for charges for pathological and pathological work done at Government Laboratory. On March 3, 1982, these rules were amended and copy of the Notification is Annexure A-6. Annexure A-3 is the notification dated May 14, 1991 issued by the Punjab Government as applicable to the hospitals, dispensaries, Medical Colleges and allied institutions run by the Punjab Government. This notification has been issued in supersession of the notification dated January 14, 1991 prescribing different rates applicable to different persons. Particular reference is being made to item No. 12 prescribing Operation charges as under :

12. OPERATION CHARGES;

(a)

Minor operation

Rs.

50/-


(b)

Minor operation under general anaesthesia

Rs.

1































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top