Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 54.

[1970] 1 S.C.R. 457.

Jersey in the case of State ex rel. J. G., N. S. & J. T25. wherein, the court observed that a negative HIV test result for the accused does not necessarily mean they are not infected with HIV. It could be due to the “window period”, during which HIV tests may provide inaccurate results.

30. It was argued that respondents had, through various letters26 admitted that the appellant qualifies as a consumer under Section 2 (l) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereafter “CPA 1986”) as the appellant, being a permanent employee of the IAF, availed medical services from the respondents as defined under the same section. The appellant placed reliance on the judgments of this court, including M/S. Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. versus Harjol Ahluwalia Through K.S. Ahluwalia & Anr. (hereafter, “Spring Meadows”)27; Kishore Lal vs. Chairman, Employee State Insurance Corporation (hereafter, “Kishore Lal”)28; Laxman Thamappa Kotgiri v G. M., Central Railway (hereafter, Laxman Thamappa Kotgiri”)29; and Savita Garg vs. The Director, National Heart Institute30, to further substantiate his submission.

V. Submissions on Behalf of Respondents

32. Learned counsel appearing for the Indian Army and IAF, Additional Solicitor General – Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee (hereafter “ASG”) submitted that the appellant failed to prove medical negligence attributable to the respondents and that no medical report submitted on record establishes negligence on their part.

33. It was submitted by the ASG that the appellant is not a ‘consumer’ in terms of Section 2(1)(d)31 of the CPA 1986, he was entitled to, and availed medical services from armed forces hospitals free of cost and the services provided by the armed forces hospital is not a service under the Section 2(1)(o)32 of the CPA 1986. Such services are provided without any consideration. Reliance was placed on following observations of this court’s judgment in Nivedita Singh v Dr Asha Bharti33:

VI. ANALYSIS

(i) Jurisdiction

(a) Is appellant’s case covered under CPA 1986:

43. The first question that the court has to consider is whether the appellant’s case is 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 CPA 1986, because all armed force 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 CPA 1986.

49. Section 1 (4) of CPA 1986, (which was in force when the appellant preferred his complaint) reads as follows:

“1. Short title, extent, commencement and applications:

(4) Save as otherwise expressly provided by the Central Government by notifications, this Act shall apply to all goods and services.”

50. Earlier, keeping in line with the reasoning that furthered the objectives of the CPA 1986, spelt out in V.P. Shantha, this court had rejected, in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v Shiv Kumar Joshi40: