Free Service at Government Hospital Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Rajasthan State Commission - 2025-09-05

No Relief Under Consumer Act for Free Treatment at Govt Hospital, Rules Rajasthan State Commission

Kota, Rajasthan – The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kota Bench, has dismissed a medical negligence complaint seeking over ₹40 lakh in compensation, ruling that free services provided at a government hospital do not fall under the definition of 'service' as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Commission held that since no payment was made for the surgery in question, the patient's family cannot be classified as 'consumers' and are therefore not entitled to relief under the Act.

The bench, comprising Presiding Member (Judicial) Surendra Kumar Jain and Member Shailendra Bhatt, also observed that even on the merits of the case, the allegations of medical negligence against the doctors were not substantiated by evidence on record.

---

Background of the Case

The complaint was filed by Mahendra Kumaar Agrawal and his two minor children following the tragic death of his wife, Mrs. Babita Agrawal. According to the complaint, Mrs. Agrawal was scheduled for a kidney stone removal surgery on May 19, 2015, at Maharao Bheemsingh Hospital, a government facility in Kota. The surgery was to be performed by Dr. Nilesh Kumar Jain.

Mr. Agrawal alleged that after his wife was given anesthesia and an incision was made, a power failure interrupted the procedure. He claimed the doctors abandoned the surgery, leaving the incision open and bleeding. Despite the patient's deteriorating condition and power being restored, Dr. Jain allegedly refused to complete the operation that day.

The family then rushed Mrs. Agrawal to multiple private hospitals before air-ambulancing her to Ahmedabad, where she succumbed to a widespread infection on May 26, 2015. The complainant attributed her death to the incomplete procedure and the subsequent infection, demanding ₹40,51,500 in compensation for medical expenses, loss of income, and mental anguish.

Arguments from Both Sides

• Complainant's Stance: Mr. Agrawal argued that although the surgery was at a government hospital, he had previously paid consultation fees to Dr. Jain at his private residence, thereby establishing a service-for-consideration relationship. He contended that leaving the surgery incomplete and the incision open constituted gross negligence, which directly led to the fatal infection.

• Doctors' Defense: Dr. Nilesh Jain vehemently denied the allegations. He stated that the treatment at the government hospital was entirely free of charge, which bars the complainant from approaching a consumer forum. On the merits, he claimed that only a superficial, 2mm skin incision was made before the power outage forced a halt. For patient safety, she was revived from anesthesia and shifted to an observation ward. He argued that the patient was taken away from the hospital against medical advice and without a formal discharge, and the subsequent infection could have developed during her treatment at various other facilities.

Court's Legal Analysis and Precedent

The Commission's decision hinged on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction: whether the complainant qualified as a 'consumer' under the Act.

The court distinguished the private consultations, which occurred nearly a year before the surgery, from the specific service in dispute—the operation itself. It noted, "Even if Dr. Nilesh Jain took a fee at his home a year before the operation date, it cannot be considered as consideration for the operation."

The Commission heavily relied on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha and ors. (1995) . It cited Conclusion No. 9 from the said judgment, which unequivocally states:

"Service rendered at a Government hospital/health centre/dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service - is outside the purview of the expression 'service' as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act."

Based on this binding precedent, the Commission concluded that the surgery performed free of cost at the government hospital did not constitute a 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complainants were not 'consumers' and could not seek remedy from the consumer forum.

Observations on Merits

Despite dismissing the case on jurisdictional grounds, the Commission briefly examined the negligence claims. It found that the medical records, including the operation notes, contradicted the complainant's assertion of a deep, open wound. The records indicated that only a small skin incision was made, which was bandaged before the patient was shifted to an observation ward. The Commission stated, "we find that in the present case, no negligence has been committed by the opposite party number 1 doctor or the opposite party number 2 doctor."

Final Verdict

In its final order dated May 3, 2023, the Commission dismissed the complaint, stating that the complainants were not entitled to any relief under the Consumer Protection Act. The judgment highlights the critical distinction between paid and free medical services in the context of consumer law, reaffirming that patients seeking remedy for alleged negligence in free government facilities may need to pursue other legal avenues, such as civil courts.