Back
2007 (1) CPR 433 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member;
B.K. Taimni, Member
Rishi Pal Singh & Ors.—Complainants
versus
Aligarh Muslim University
& Anr.—Opp. Parties
Original Petition No. 114 of 1997
Decided on 14-2-2007
Held: After hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, we find that we cannot sustain the objection of the OPs that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’. There is no dispute that the first complainant is an employee of the first OP and certain charges are being deducted from his salary every month. In these circumstances, we draw an inference that providing of health service is part of the service condition of appointment of the complainant by the first OP, on account of which we hold that the complainant is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors, III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), para 55(12) of which reads as under:
“12. Similarly, where, as a part of the conditions of service, the employer bears the expenses of medical treatment of an employee and his family members dependant on him, the service rendered to such an employee and his family members by a medical practitioner or a hospital nursing home would not be free of charge and would constitute ‘service’ under Section 2(1)(b) of the Act.”
A plain reading of this provision leaves us in no doubt that the complainant is an employee of the OP and providing medical facilities to him and his family members as part of the service condition, in view of which the objection of the OP of complainant not being a ‘consumer’ has no merit. (Paras 7 and 8)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g)—Deficiency in medical service—Shot injury—Patient arrived at 9 a.m.—Registrar—Surgeon on duty attended—Qualified—Treatment given—Went in Cardiac arrest at 9.20 p.m.—Whether a case of medical negligence? (No)—Onus on complainant—No expert evidence—No challenge to treatment—Complaint dismissed.
Held: It has not shown to us whether the Registrar Surgeon on duty was not qualified to undertake the case, and much less on the line of treatment given by the attending doctors, and still much less, in the administration of the treatment. Admittedly, the deceased Rahul was in the 1st OP’s Hospital only for 30 minutes. He was brought with a gunshot at 9.00 p.m. and went in a cardiac arrest at 9.20 p.m. and died at 9.30 p.m. The treatment given at the Hospital has neither been challenged or faulted by way of any expert evidence, nor the complainant has shown any medical literature that what was done was not the correct approach to deal with the situation.
In the aforementioned circumstances, the complainant has completely failed to prove the case of medical negligence against the Opposite Party; Aligarh Muslim University, in view of which, we find no merit in this complaint, hence dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Paras 15, 16 and 17)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
B.K. Taimni, Member—This complaint has been filed by the father, mother and one of the sisters of deceased Rahul alleging ‘medical negligence’ on the part of the respondents. Undisputed facts of the case are that the deceased who was a student of B. Com. in the first Opposite Party University shot himself, apparently in a fit of depression, on 2nd March, 1997 and he was immediately rushed with the help of family and neighbours to the hospital maintained by the first Opposite Party (OP) as part of the medical discipline within the University.
2. It is the case of the complainant that when Rahul was rushed to the Hospital of the 1st Opposite Party, he was not seen by a senior surgeon like second Opposite Party Dr. M.S. Beg, who was in-charge of the Emergency Department. He was seen by some junior doctors. The medical treatment fell far short of requisite or proper surgical treatment. Neither the point of bleeding was ascertained nor was the bleeding checked, as the specific treatment could not be provided by the junior doctor. As a result of negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, Rahul aged 20 years, died on 2.3.1997 at about 9.30 p.m. Upon issue of notice, OPs appeared and filed written version.
3. Vide our order dated 8.5.2002, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant decided to give up the second OP and proceed against the University for not providing medical services in their hospital.
4. In these circumstances, written version was filed by the Opposite Party Hospital along with record and it was stated in the written version filed by the Opposite Party No.1 that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as the Hospital was rendering ‘services’ free to each and every one. On merits, it was also stated for attending on the emergency cases, there is a team comprising of Doctor from various disciplines and on that date the three Doctors on duty attended on the patient, sealed the flow of blood, gave blood transfusion and also administered necessary medicines but unfortunately the deceased developed Cardiopulmonary attack at 9.20 p.m. for which resuscitation was done, yet the patient could not be revived back to life and he was declared dead at 9.30 p.m. Affidavits were filed from both sides.
5. We heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties at great length.
6. The main ground on which the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant wishes to assail the functioning of the first respondent is, that even though in the death certificate, Dr. M. H. Beg has been shown the clinical in-charge, yet he has not been examined. The only affidavit brought on record by the Opposite Parties is that Law Officer thus depriving him the opportunity to cross-examine which is bad in law. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties reiterated that complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and whatever was possible to be done within half an hour, i.e., period for which the deceased was in the Hospital, was done and no negligence on their part can be fastened on the opposite parties.
7. After hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, we find that we cannot sustain the objection of the OPs that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’. There is no dispute that the first complainant is an employee of the first OP and certain charges are being deducted from his salary every month. In these circumstances, we draw an inference that providing of health service is part of the service condition of appointment of the complainant by the first OP, on account of which we hold that the complainant is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors.1, para 55(12) of which reads as under:
“12. Similarly, where, as a part of the conditions of service, the employer bears the expenses of medical treatment of an employee and his family members dependant on him, the service rendered to such an employee and his family members by a medical practitioner or a hospital nursing home would not be free of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
