Service rendered under a free scheme is not subject to consumer protection laws.

1. The petitioner, a fully Government owned Society registered under the Travancore - Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1956, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exts.P8, P10 and P11.

2. The petitioner states that it is an internationally recognised medical centre providing state of the art facilities for cancer diagnosis, treatment, palliation and rehabilitation. It is a premier cancer care hospital and research centre in India operating under the National Cancer Control Programme of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The petitioner formulated a number of cancer care schemes for providing free cancer treatment to the members of the Scheme. The 3 respondent joined in "Cancer Care for Life Scheme" along with three of his family members by paying a nominal amount of Rs.1,700/-.

3. The 3rd respondent was afflicted with cancer and availed free treatment from the petitioner. Chemotherapy was done on the petitioner free of charge. However, the petitioner had to be subjected to a specialised "Targetted Therapy". The petitioner paid Rs.4,40,466/- as cost of medicine.

4. However, subsequently, the 3rd respondent approached District Consumer Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The District Forum passed Ext.P8 order dated 30.07.2015 directing the petitioner to reimburse a sum of Rs.4,40,466/-, being the cost of drugs for Targeted Therapy, which is excluded from the purview of reimbursement. The petitioner preferred Ext.P9 appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, invoking S.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as per Ext.P10 judgment dated 09.10.2019. Now, the petitioner has been served with a notice in an execution petition filed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order of the CDRF, Ext.P10 order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ext.P11 notice to show - cause issued by the CDRF.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that the 3 respondent is beneficiary of a gratuitous and free service offered by the petitioner under Ext.P1 Scheme. He is not a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for the alleged deficiency of service.

7. The petitioner states that Ext.P1 Scheme, in which the 3rd respondent has joined, only provides for reimbursement of money for cost of drugs of Chemotherapy. Targeted Therapy is not covered under the Scheme. The 3rd respondent was informed of the same before proceeding with the treatment. The Scheme only provides gratuitous and free service to its members. Hence, the CDRF ought to have dismissed the claim made by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent entered appearance and contested the writ petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in Indian Medical Association v. VP. Shantha and others [(1995) 6 SCC 651 : (AIR 1996 SC 550)] and argued that service rendered at a Government Hospital / Health Centre / Dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services, is outside the purview of the expression "service" as defined under S.2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned counsel argued that as the CDRF had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent Ext.P8 is nullity and this Court can declare the same as nul