The Supreme Court has reiterated that a Doctor providing free medical services on behalf of the hospital cannot be sued under Consumer Protection Act for deceptive practices.

The Bench comprising of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian has established that such service wouldn't fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the ground that the medical officers are salaried employees of the Hospital, doesn't hold.

The Court was dealing with a plea assailing the NCDRC order in which the National Forum has upheld a District Forum decision wherein it dismissed Appellant's petition holding that she doesn't fall under the definition of a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Court observed that in terms of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, a Consumer is the one who hires or avails of any services for a ‘consideration’ which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised.

"Since the admitted case of the appellant is that the appellant has not paid any consideration for availing the services of the respondents - doctors and the nurses, she would not be covered under the definition of consumer to avail the remedies under the Act."

The Court rejected the contention of Appellant's Counsel that that payment for service availed is not a necessary ingredient to file a complaint under the Act and relied on a receipt of service-charge while citing SC Judgement in "Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors, 2011 Latest Caselaw 410 SC" 

The Court stated that the above ruling isn't tenable as it specifies the below:

"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)(0) of the Act being free of charge, the same service cannot be treated as service under Section 2(1)(0) 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 Section 2(1)(0) of the Act."

 The Court further observed that Consumer Court isn't the right redressal forum to provide her the remedy.

"In fact, in a common written statement filed, an objection was raised that the appellant should file a suit in a competent Civil Court by depositing proper court fee and not in Consumer Court as the suit is not maintainable before the Consumer Court."

Read Order Here:

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon