STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/247/2017 sheeja binu PRESENT ADDRESS - VENGAVILA VEEDU, ERAPPOL, MANGODE.P.O ,KERALA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus MEDICAL OFFICER, COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT ADDRESS - MEDICAL OFFICER, COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,KERALA.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

NEMO FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NEMO DATED: 05/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C. No. 247/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05.06.2025 PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER COMPLAINANT:

Sheeja Binu, D/o Gopi, Vengavila Veedu, Erappol, Mangode P.O.

(By Adv. V.N. Mohan Raj)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Kallara, Thiruvananthapuram

2. Superintendent, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram

3. State of Kerala represented by Chief Secretary to Government, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001 (By N.C. Priyan, Addl. Govt. Pleader)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging medical negligence against the opposite st parties in connection with the treatment given to the complainant by the 1 opposite party and other doctors of different Government hospitals under the opposite parties 2 and 3.

2. When this complaint has been taken up today, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that since the doctors including the first opposite party, who treated the complainant, were working in different Government hospitals under the second and the third opposite parties, the service given by the first opposite party to the complainant cannot come under the purview of ‘service’ under Sec. 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in the said circumstances, the consumer complaint is not maintainable against the opposite parties.

3. The question to be considered is as to whether a consumer complaint is maintainable or not against the doctors working in the government hospital, where the treatment is given free of charge.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nivedita Singh vs Asha Bharti (Dr.) and Others 1 (2022) CPJ 69 (SC) : 2021 KHC OnLine 6825 in paragraph (6) held as hereinbelow:-

“6. A reading of the above para shows that a medical officer who is employed in a hospital renders service on behalf of the hospital administration and if the service as rendered by the Hospital does not fall within the ambit of 2(1)(o) of the Act being free of charge, the same service cannot be treated as service under S.2(1)(o) for the reasons that it has been rendered by medical officer in the hospital who receives salary for the employment in the hospital. It was thus concluded that the services rendered by employee - medical officer to such a person would therefore continue to be service rendered free of charge and would be outside the purview of S.2(1)(o) of the Act”.

5. The three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha and others (AIR 1996 SC 550 : 1995 KHC 1006) held that service rendered free of charge by a medical practitioner attached to a hospital/nursing home or a medical officer employed in a hospital/nursing home where such services are rendered free of charge to everybody, would not be “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital/nursing home would not alter the position.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. N.K. Srivasta and Others reported in 2020 (4) KHC 373 : 2020(9) SCALE 208 held that it is only where a hospital provides medical services free of charge across the board to all patients that it would stand o