Back
2011(2) CPR 428
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
S.N. Aggarwal President; Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma and B.S. Sekhon, Members
Manjt Singh and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Civil Hospital, Payal and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 486 of 2005
Decided on 3.2.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Shri Munish Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Shri Balbir Singh, Senior Assistant.
For the Respondent No.3: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where the services rendered by doctors are free of charge, patient would not be a consumer and complaint of such patient against the doctor for deficiency in service would not be maintainable.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(b), 2(1)(g), 12—Deficiency in service—Conception and delivery of child despite sterilization operation—Claim of compensation on account of deficiency in service—Respondents Government hospitals—No document produced by the appellants to show any payment for availing the service of sterilization—Payment of procedural expenses not medical fee—Services rendered by the Government hospitals free of charge—Appellants not consumer within the meaning of word consumer defined in the Act—Complaint not maintainable. (Paras 16, 19 and 20)
S.N. Aggarwal, President —Baljinder Kaur appellant No.2 was the wife of Manjit Singh appellant No.1. She had become pregnant. She got sterilization operation conducted from the respondents on 23.9.1994 for which a certificate was given by the respondents to her. She was assured that no child would be born to her but later on the sterilization operation had failed and the child was born.
2. It was further pleaded that the appellant Baljinder Kaur again got herself subjected to sterilization operation on 27.2.1998 from the respondents and she was told that she will have no conception. However when she got herself medically examined on 7.12.2003 in Sidhu Hospital, she came to know that she had full term pregnancy and labour pain and a male baby was born to her and she was discharged on 8.12.2003. Again the sterilization operation conducted by the respondents failed and it was very difficult for the appellants to afford the child and to spend on his maintenance/education and bringing up. Hence the complaint for compensation of Rs.15,00,000. Interest and costs were also prayed.
3. The complaint was dismissed by the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 20.1.2005 on the plea that the appellants were not the consumers.
4. Hence the appeal.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that they had paid medical fee to the respondents and, therefore, they were the consumers of the respondents. Hence it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the matter be remitted to the learned District Forum for deciding the complaint on merits after giving notice to the respondents. Reliance was placed on the Government instructions dated 23.9.2004 and the judgment of the Hon’ble U.T. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh reported as Devendra Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research and Ors.1 another judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported as Sailesh Munjal and another v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & others.2 It was further submitted that according to the law laid down in these judgments the appellants were the consumers qua the respondents.
6. On the other hand, the representative of the respondents submitted that the appellants were not the consumers of the respondents as they had taken free medical treatment i.e. sterilization operation. Hence it was submitted that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
7. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
8. So far as the sterilization operation which was allegedly got conducted by Baljinder Kaur appellant from the respondent hospital on 23.9.1994 is concerned, the complaint was clearly barred by time having been filed on 28.12.2004. Therefore the appellants cannot agitate regarding that operation.
9. So far as the sterilization operation got conducted by Baljinder Kaur appellant on 28.2.1998 is concerned, the child was allegedly born on 7/8.12.2003. There is no doubt that the respondents are the Government hospitals. The appellants have failed to produce any document to show if they had made any payment to the respondents for getting the sterilization operation conducted.
10. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the document issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab (Comparative User Charges Rates) Ex.C7. It was submitted that every patient has to deposit purchase fee, admission charges, visiting fee charges and room AC charges etc. Therefore sterilization operation was conducted by the respondents on payment basis and for a consideration. Therefore as per the judgments, referred to above, the appellants were the consumers qua the respondents.
11. This submission has been considered. It has no merits at all. The payment of these charges are only procedural expenses and not the medical fee. Such a matter had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judg
