Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.3 vehemently contended that the District Forum passed the impugned order, without properly appreciating the evidence produced on the record. The complainant took treatment from the Govt. hospital without any consideration and the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer". While admission of the complainant, she was thoroughly examined and properly treated, as per standard protocol and there was no medical negligence in treating her on the part of opposite party No.3. As the staff of Civil Hospital, Dhanaula was on strike at the relevant time, so the complainant was referred to Civil Hospital Barnala at 6.22 a.m. through ambulance; where she was operated by the doctors on 13.08.2011 and she delivered a child, who died after taking birth. After the patient was referred to Civil Hospital, Barnala in a stable condition, there was no occasion for opposite party No.3 to give wrong treatment to the patient thereafter. In support of his arguments, he relied upon Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 651. The appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

15. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised on behalf of parties and have thoroughly examined the entire record.

16. First of all, we intend to decide the preliminary objection raised by the opposite parties that the complainant is not their consumer and does not falls under the definition of the "consumer", as per the Act, as the entire treatment was provided to her free of costs in a Govt. Hospital.

Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment.

18. A bare perusal of the above said definition of "consumer", shows that a consumer means any person, who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. When such service, as referred to above, is availed, then the complainant certainly falls under the definition of "consumer". The definition of "consumer" is wide enough to include a patient, who merely promised to pay the treatment charges to the hospital.

21. In view of the above law, even the persons availing treatment from Government Hospitals free of charge are to be held to be beneficiaries-consumers. As such, the complainant certainly falls within the definition of the "consumer", as defined in the Act, as the treatment undertaken by opposite parties squarely falls within the definition of "service" as per the definition given in Section 2 (1)

(o) of the Act.

22. Now coming to the merits of the case, the complainant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Dhanaula on 12.08.2011 vide Ex.R-1 and as per version of opposite party No.3, at that time the patient was not in labour pains. She was admitted with the history of nausea and vomiting and opposite party No.3 gave treatment i.e. I V fluids, injection aciloc, injection perinorm etc. as per document which is part of Ex.R-1. The case of the complainant is that opposite party No.3 was not present in the hospital at the relevant time and she was called after making repeated calls by opposite party No.4. Delivery by way of caesarean operation was the urgent need at that time, but opposite party No.3 referred the complainant to Civil Hospital, Barnala after a considerable delay and even without any sufficient cause. Opposite party No.3 was cross-examined in this case. She deposed in cross-examination that the complainant was nine months pregnant at the time of her admission in the hospital and complained of vomiting, pain in abdomen. She further deposed that she was capable of conducting caesarean operation in such a situation. During the cross-examination, opposite party No.3 showed here ignorance about the rules regarding referring any patient to some higher hospital. She further admitted it correct that it is mentioned in Ex.C-5 that she advised the treatment on telephone. She further deposed that the complainant was referred to higher hospital due to strike of OT staff in the hospital. However, there is no documentary evidence to prove that the OT staff of Civil Hospital Dhanaula was on strike on that day. Opposite party No.3 was also cross-examined by opposite party No.5 and she stated that Dr. Rohit Ram Pal had admitted the patient. She also admitted that she did not advise the patient for any test at the time of admission. She further admitted that Dr. Rohit Ram Pal had not given his opinion before referring the patient in that condition to Civil Hospital, Barnala. She conveyed Dr. Rohit Ram Pal on telephone to refer the patient. She also admitted that she was busy in conducting another delivery. She also admitted that she did not contact the SMO for arranging the nurse and it was an emergency. Opposite party No.3 also admitted that opposite party No.4 was capable of providing services in emergency situation. She specifically admitted that she was not present in the hospital at the time of referring the patient.