Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed a batch of appeals, special leave petitions, and a writ petition concerning whether medical practitioners and hospitals render 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The litigation arose from conflicting decisions of various High Courts and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dr. A.S. Chandra v. Union of India held that service rendered for consideration by private medical practitioners, private hospitals, and nursing homes is 'service' and patients are 'consumers'. The Madras High Court in Dr. C.S. Subramanian v. Kumarasamy & Anr. took a contrary view, holding that diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, would not fall within 'service', though paramedical services for consideration would be covered. The National Commission had rendered multiple decisions: in 1989 it held that persons availing free medical treatment in government hospitals are not consumers because payment of taxes is not consideration; in 1992 it held that providing medical assistance for payment is 'service' and legal representatives of deceased patients are consumers; and in 1993 it held that treatment given free of charge in a nursing home did not constitute 'service'. A writ petition under Article 32 was filed by Cosmopolitan Hospital (P) Ltd. and Dr. K. Venogopolan Nair challenging the constitutional validity of the Act insofar as applied to the medical profession, as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court heard arguments from senior counsel representing the medical profession, hospitals, and complainants. The background of the Act shows it was enacted following the United Nations General Assembly Consumer Protection Resolution No. 39/248 adopted on April 9, 1985, to provide better protection of consumer interests and to establish a three-tier redressal structure of District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission. The definition of 'service' in Section 2(1)(o) is split into main, inclusionary, and exclusionary parts; the exclusionary part excludes rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. The provided excerpt ends before the Supreme Court's final decision and detailed reasoning.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Medical Services - Service under Section 2(1)(o) - Service rendered for consideration by private medical practitioners, private hospitals and nursing homes is 'service' and persons availing such services are 'consumers' under Section 2(1)(d) - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dr. A.S. Chandra v. Union of India held that service for consideration by private medical practitioners and hospitals falls within the definition of 'service' and patients are 'consumers'. Held accordingly. B) Consumer Protection - Medical Services - Exclusion of diagnosis and treatment from 'service' - The Madras High Court in Dr. C.S. Subramanian v. Kumarasamy & Anr. held that diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, by medical practitioners or hospitals would not come within 'service', but paramedical services for consideration are 'service' and the recipient is a 'consumer'. Held accordingly. C) Consumer Protection - Government Hospitals - Free medical treatment not 'service' - National Commission held persons availing medical treatment in Government hospitals are not 'consumers' because payment of taxes does not constitute consideration for hiring services; contribution in Central Government Health Scheme does not make a government employee a consumer. Held accordingly. D) Consumer Protection - Medical Services - Payment for medical assistance is 'service' - National Commission in First Appeal Nos.48 and 94 of 1991 held that providing medical assistance for payment by hospitals and medical professionals falls within 'service' and deficiency can be remedied under the Act; legal representatives of deceased patients are 'consumers'. Held accordingly. E) Consumer Protection - Free Treatment - Treatment without charge is not 'service' - National Commission in O.P.No.93/92 held that treatment given to deceased husband in nursing home totally free of charge did not constitute 'service' under the Act and complainant not entitled to relief. Held accordingly. F) Constitutional Law - Validity of CPA Applicability to Medical Profession - Articles 14, 19(1)(g) - Writ Petition filed under Article 32 challenges applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to medical profession as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); the issue was raised but final decision not mentioned in provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether and in what circumstances a medical practitioner can be regarded as rendering 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; whether service rendered at a hospital/nursing home can be regarded as 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act; whether free medical treatment in government hospitals constitutes service; whether applicability of the Act to medical profession violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
Law Points
- Service under Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act
- 1986 includes service rendered for consideration
- medical services for payment are service
- free medical treatment not service
- government hospital free services not service
- paramedical services for consideration are service
- deficiency in medical service for payment actionable
- legal representatives of patients are consumers
- contract of personal service excluded
- constitutional validity of applying CPA to medical profession challenged under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)
