ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, C.G.H.S., PUNE vs R.L.BUTANI

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 20th July, 1994 of the State Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay reversing the decision of the District Forum dated 17.4.1993 wherein it was held that the Complainant is not a consumer. The State Commission remitted back the Complainant to the District Forum Pune with a direction to entertain and decide the complaint according to law after holding that the Complainant is a consumer.

THE facts in brief are these : The Complainant made a complaint before the District Forum, Pune alleging that he is a retired Central Government servant and his family is beneficiary of Central Government Health Scheme (for short called C.G.H.S.). The complainant maintained that he pays Rs. 9/- per month towards the C.G.H.S. and he paid upto 30th June, 1993 and that if he does not pay the charges he does not get the medical facility. The grievance is that the Complainant''s wife was suffering from some ailments and she was operated at Pune in private hospital but unfortunately her condition could not improve and she became paralytic. He further stated in his complaint that the Pune Doctor referred her to consult Dr. Bhatia, Neuro Physician of Bombay. He then got transfer authority from local C.G.H.S. for Bombay Hospital and told him to contact Pune C.G.H.S. and Mr. Roy, the Additional Director advised him to surrender the transfer authority and recommended his case for reimbursement. He further alleged that surgery was performed at Bombay hospital and towards that he had spent Rs. 14,862.60 but in spite of repeated requests there was no reimbursement from C.G.H.S. and the claim was denied as it was treated as private hospital. The Complainant prayed foe direction to reimburse him the full amount of Rs. 14,862.60. In the reply version the Petitioner herein stated that the Union of India takes nominal charges for administrative purpose and no charge is levied for treatment or for medical expenses. It was contended that the Complainant does not come under the term service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 especially because this is a service rendered free of charge and under a contract of personal service. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the services rendered by Government to its beneficiaries are not of nature which may be compared to that of a consumer and dismissed the complaint. The State Commission vide order dated 20th of July, 1994 reversed that decision.

THIS Commission has already taken the view that a Government servant under the Central Government Health Scheme is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the services rendered to him under the C.G.H.S., does not constitute service as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Santha and Ors. dated 13th November, 1995 reported at (1995)3 CTJ 969 (Supreme Court)(CP), has ruled that service rendered at a Government hospital/health center/dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service is outside the purview of the expression ''service'' as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at hospital/nursing home would not alter the position. The Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.