Military hospitals providing free services to armed forces personnel are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, thus complaints against them for negligence cannot be maintained.

ORDER

1. The present complaint has been filed by the dependent of a member of the armed forces alleging medical negligence in respect of the treatment rendered to her. She alleges that the sufferance caused was on account of the deficiencies and negligence of the hospital in treating her that resulted in the birth of a girl child with severe deformities. The allegation is that during the complainant’s pregnancy period, the diagnosis and the tests as well as the procedures that were to be conducted during the respective trimesters of pregnancy, were overlooked by the opposite parties No.3 & 4, the Radiologists of the Military Hospital, Jalandhar Cantt.

2. Before proceeding with the complaint we had made an enquiry on 10.06.2025 from Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel about the maintainability of the complaint in the background of the three Judges Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651 . In view of the said order the matter was taken up on 07.07.2025, and after appreciating the submissions raised, an order was passed which is extracted herein under: -

“Heard Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel who has appeared today on behalf of the complainant and he has cited the three Member decision of this Commission in CPL. Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd) v. Commanding Officer, 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 594C, decided on 27.08.2021 that has not been approved by the Apex Court in Ashish Kumar Chauhan Vs. Commanding Officers & Ors., (2023) 15 SCC 152, decided on 26.09.2023. The contention therefore raised is that the said decision proceeds to analyse the protection to armed forces personnel availing the medical benefits of army hospitals and it has been held that they are covered under the Consumer Protection Act .

Paragraph 47 to 57 of the said order are extracted herein under:

“VI. Analysis

(i) Jurisdiction

(a) Is the appellant's case covered under the CPA , 1986?

47. The first question that the Court has to consider is whether the appellant's case is covered under the CPA , 1986. The respondents contend that the appellant cannot claim to be a consumer, and the medical facilities extended to him, through the IAF and army hospitals, do not fall within the ambit of the , 1986, because all armed forces personnel are required, as part of their duties, to show fitness, and are subjected to periodic mandatory medical tests. The terms and conditions of engagement of armed forces personnel, and the army/IAF ecosystem are geared to ensure the fitness and sound medical shape of its personnel. Therefore, even the doctors and other personnel within the medical system are subjected to army/IAF discipline and rules and regulations. In these circumstances, Army hospitals and similar facilities cannot be considered as covered by the , 1986.

48. It would be useful to extract the relevant regulation (applicable to Indian army personnel), which is contained in Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (hereafter “the Army Pension Regulations”):

“173. Primary Conditions for the grant of disability pension.—Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability pension consisting of service element and disability element may be granted to an individual who is invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is assessed at 20% or over.”

49. Chapter III of the IAF Pension Regulations, 1961, applies to airmen i.e. non- commissioned personnel and officers, such as the appellant, which spells out its appli