Consumer court relief to Lok Nayak hospital, doctor; imposes Rs 10,000 cost on patient for frivolous and vexatious litigation

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President and Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member of the District Commission observed that as argued by the doctor's advocate the complaint was not maintainable qua doctor also as the hospital, being a government hospital, does not charge any fee from any of the patients and the services so rendered by employee doctors are also out of purview of application of the Consumer Protection Act.

It was the case of the complainant that after having two live children she decided to have sterilisation surgery conducted to prevent further pregnancy. Accordingly under the supervision of the doctor, the sterilisation surgery was done. Subsequently in the year 2014, almost two and a half years of the sterilisation surgery, the complainant got pregnant with the third child. Soon after the knowledge of pregnancy in the month of October 2014, she contacted the doctor at Lok Nayak Hospital complaining about the failure of the sterilisation and also for possibility of abortion of the said pregnancy. According to the complainant, the doctor delayed abortion in the name of conducting some more tests, and later abortion was not conducted in view of advanced stage of pregnancy. Thereafter, the third live child was born in 2015.

In response to the allegation, the doctor and the hospital filed their replies, underlining two major issues. They raised that the complainant is not a consumer in view of the fact that hospital and the doctor were rendering free service to the complainant and the complainant was not charged either for the sterilisation surgery or for the delivery of the third child.

Further, even if there was a pregnancy after the sterilisation surgery, the failed sterilisation surgery cannot be said to be a deficiency of service.

The doctor additionally stated that she retired from the services of the hospital in the year 2012 itself and the allegations of the complainant in the complaint that she contacted the doctor in the hospital in the year 2014 is a false statement as she was not attending the hospital after her retirement.

To support their arguments, they placed their reliance on Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors. [(1995) 6 SCC 651], and Nivedita Singh Vs. Dr. Asha Bharti & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.103/2012 decided on 07.12.2021 judgments of Hon’ble Supreme.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha [(1995) 6 SCC 651], the services rendered by government hospital is not covered under the definition of “service” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

The Learned Advocate for the doctor and the hospital also argued that as the hospital, being a government hospital, is not charging any charges whatsoever from the patients for the services so rendered by it and in the case in hand the Complainant has also not made any payment to the hospital for the services so rendered to her by the Hospital, in view of the IMA judgment (supra), the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

After examining the case, the Commission opined that the hospital does not charge whatsoever for the treatment/ services rendered by it to any of the patient.

It further referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs N K Srivasta [2020 (9) SCALE 208], Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied on the IMA judgment (supra) and has held that services rendered by a hospital to all its patients free of cost across the board, are out of the purview of the application of the Consumer Protection Act. accordingly, it noted;

"In the case in hand, the OP-2 hospital, being a Government run hospital, renders services across the board to all patients, free of cost, hence, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act would not apply."

It further referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nivedita Singh (supra) case and concluded;

"In view of the judgments referred above, we are of the opinion that the consumer complaint qua OP-1 Doctor as well as OP-2 Hospital would not lie and this compliant is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone."

The Commission further clarified that even on merits, the consumer complaint in cases of failed sterilisation surgery is not maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram [(2005) 7 SCC 1], in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even in cases of sterilisation, the women can get pregnant because of natural reasons. In such cases when menstrual cycle is missed, it is expected from the couple to visit the doctor for taking appropriate medical advice including option of termination of pregnancy.

Moreover, on scrutiny of documents, the Commission found that the Complainant has given a false statement regarding her visit in the hospital in the month of October 2021 as none of the medical records which have been filed by the parties before the Commission, suggest her visit and medical treatment prior to 16.03.2015 during her third pregnancy. Further, the court noted;

"On account of retirement of the doctor from the services of the hospital, it is also not possible that the Complainant visited Doctor at the hospital. Hence, the statement of the Complainant that she visited the Doctor who allegedly delayed the medical termination of pregnancy is also not correct."

"Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the Complainant has made false allegations and unsubstantiated claims against both the OPs. Hence while holding that these false allegations and unsubstantiated claims amount to frivolous and vexatious litigation, we impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the Complainant, which shall be paid equally to both the OPs. Accordingly, Complainant is directed to make the payment of the cost of Rs. 10,000/- to OP-2 hospital within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Upon receiving the said cost, from the said amount, OP-2 hospital shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to OP-1 Doctor and report compliance to this Commission."

Subsequently, the consumer body observed that the Complainant failed to prove her case and the complaint was also liable to be dismissed even on merits. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed on both grounds namely- (1) non-maintainability of the complaint with respect to government hospital and its employee doctors who provide free treatment to all patients across the board, and (2) lack of merit.

To view the original order, click on the link below: