Nivedita Singh (s) v. Dr. Asha Bharti And Others (s)., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Nivedita Singh, received medical treatment at the District Women Hospital, Ghazipur, and obtained a receipt dated 27-08-2004 showing payment of Rs. 266/- as a “service charge.” She later filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service by the attending government doctors and nurses. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that she was not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”). Successive appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) met the same fate. The present Civil Appeal No. 103/2012 before the Supreme Court challenged the NCDRC’s order dated 26-05-2010.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

Relied on the receipt of Rs. 266/- to contend that some consideration had been paid for the services.

Cited the Supreme Court decision in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651 to argue that an explicit payment to the doctors is not a necessary pre-condition for invoking the Act.

Respondents’ Arguments

Contended through a common written statement that the appellant’s grievance should be pursued in a civil court with proper court fees because no consideration was paid to the doctors, rendering the consumer complaint not maintainable.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651	Free medical services in government hospitals fall outside the definition of “service” under Section 2(1)(o) when rendered without consideration; salary paid to medical officers is not consideration from the patient.	The Court quoted paragraph 45 to hold that, because the appellant paid no consideration to the doctors or nurses (who are salaried government employees), she is not a “consumer” within Section 2(1)(d)(ii).

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651

Free medical services in government hospitals fall outside the definition of “service” under Section 2(1)(o) when rendered without consideration; salary paid to medical officers is not consideration from the patient.

The Court quoted paragraph 45 to hold that, because the appellant paid no consideration to the doctors or nurses (who are salaried government employees), she is not a “consumer” within Section 2(1)(d)(ii).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court focused on the statutory requirement that a “consumer” must hire or avail services “for consideration” (Section 2(1)(d)(ii)). The appellant admitted that no payment was made to the treating doctors or nurses, who are government servants. Referring to paragraph 45 of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, the Court emphasized that:

Services rendered free of charge by a government hospital are outside the ambit of Section 2(1)(o).

The salary paid by the hospital to its medical officers cannot be treated as consideration flowing from the patient.

Accordingly, the Court held that the appellant did not satisfy the definition of “consumer” and therefore could not invoke the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act. The reliance on the Rs. 266/- receipt was rejected because the payment was not made to the doctors whose services were complained of.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Dismissed. All pending applications were also disposed of.

Direct Effect: The orders of the District Forum, State Commission, and NCDRC stand affirmed, and the appellant’s consumer complaint remains dismissed for want of maintainability.

Broader Implication: The judgment reiterates that patients receiving free medical services in government hospitals, even if they pay incidental charges not constituting consideration to the medical staff, are outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Nivedita Singh (s) v. Dr. Asha Bharti And Others (s).

1. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘NCDRC’) on 26.05.2010 affirming the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant inter alia on the ground that the appellant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a receipt dated 27.08.2004 of payment of Rs. 266/- as service charge to the District Women Hospital, Ghazipur. It is admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no consideration was paid to the doctors who were in fact the Government servants.

3. 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.

4. 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. 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.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a judgment of this Court reported in (1995) 6 SCC 651 titled “Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha” to contend that payment for service availed is not a necessary ingredient to file a complaint under the Act. However, we find that the said argument is not tenable in view of the following findings recorded:—

“45. In respect of the hospitals/nursing homes (government and non-government) falling in category (i), i.e., where services are rendered free of charge to everybody availing of the services, it has been urged by Shri Dhavan that even though the service rendered at the hospital, being free of charge, does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act insofar as the hospital is concerned, the said service would fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) since it is rendered by a medical officer employed in the hospital who is not rendering the service free of charge because the said medical officer receives emoluments by way of salary for employment in the hospital. There is no merit in this contention. the medical officer who is employed in the hospital renders the service on behalf of the hospital administration and if the service, as rendered by the hospital, does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o), being free of charge, the same service cannot be treated as service under Section 2(1)(o) for the reason that it has been rendered by a medical officer in the hospital who receives salary for employment in the hospital. There is no direct nexus between the payment of the salary to the medical officer by the hospital administration and the person to whom service is rendered. The salary that is paid by the hospital administration to the employee medical officer cannot be regarded as payment made on behalf of the person availing of the service or for his benefit so as to make the person availing the service a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) in respect of the service rendered to him. The service rendered by the 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)(o).”

6. A reading of the above para shows that 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.

7. In view thereof, we do not find any merits in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 103/2012

Nivedita Singh.….Appellant(s)

Versus

Dr. Asha Bharti and Others.….Respondent(s)

Date : 07-12-2021 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

(Before Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.)

For Appellant(s) Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR

Mr. Atul Tripathi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.

Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR

Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR

Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

9. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Civil Appeal No(s). 103 of 2012

Nivedita Singh (s) v. Dr. Asha Bharti And Others (s).

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

Respondents’ Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Nivedita Singh (s) v. Dr. Asha Bharti And Others (s).

Comments