Doctors cannot be charged under Consumer Protection Act if medical services have been given for free: Supreme Court
New Delhi: Reaching an important conclusion on the matter of medical services and the Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court has noted that just because a doctor draws a salary from the hospital, the services which they have provided for free cannot fall under Consumer Protection Act.
With this, the top court upheld the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), and clarified that if the service rendered by a hospital does not fall within the ambit of 2(1) (0) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, then it cannot be considered as consumer complaints just because the service has been rendered by a medical officer who receives a salary from the hospital.
Referring to the Supreme court judgment in the case titled "Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors", the top court bench comprising of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian noted, "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."
Such an observation was made by the Apex Court recently as the bench was considering an appeal against an order passed by NCDRC, district and state commission, which had dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant 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.
The counsel for the appellant relied upon a receipt dated 27.08.2004, of payment of Rs.266/- as service charge to the District Women Hospital, Ghazipur. The counsel submitted that no consideration was paid to the doctors who were in fact the Government servants.
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.
The admitted case of the appellant was that she had not paid any consideration for availing the services of the doctors and the nurses and she would not be covered under the definition of consumer to avail the remedies under the Act.
Contending that payment for service availed is not a necessary ingredient to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, the counsel for the appellant referred to the top court judgment in the case of "Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors".
However, perusing the said judgment, the top court bench noted, "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," further clarified the court.
Dismissing the plea, the bench observed, "In view thereof, we do not find any merits in the present appeal and the same is dismissed."
To read the Apex Court order, click on the link below.
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-medical-negligence-165811.pdf
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that a similar opinion was expressed by the Telangana State Disputes Redressal Commission as well while considering a medical negligence case filed against a Government doctor and nurse.
The Commission had then clarified that the doctors and staff of the Government hospital, where no kinds of fees are collected from the patients, cannot be held guilty of medical negligence under the jurisdiction of the consumer protection act.
