P.RAVEENDRAN vs FORT HOSPITAL LTD.

WHEN O.P. 30/99 came up for consideration as to its maintainability, as the maintainability was challenged by the opposite parties in para 4 of their version, the complainant moved I.A. 922/99 for impleadment, to which the opposite party has filed objection. The questions as to maintainability as well as impleadment are heard together.

IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable because since the mother of the deceased is alive and he died unmarried, the mother being the legal representative of the deceased as per Schedule I, Clause (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the complaint having been instituted by the brother of the deceased, since he has no locus standi, the complaint has to be dismissed as not maintainable. I.A. 922/99 is by the mother of the deceased seeking impleadment as additional plaintiff. As regards the said petition by the mother of the deceased, the contention by the learned Counsel for the opposite party is, she being mother she could have sought only for substitution, she could not have sought for impleadment. On the other hand learned Counsel for the complainant referred us to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. v. Harjot Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia & Anr., I (1998) CPJ 1 (SC)=III (1998) SLT 689=(1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 39, in support of his argument that even a member of the family is entitled to maintain complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In that view, according to the learned Counsel, even the brother is entitled to maintain the complaint as he is a member of the family and the mother being the legal representative of the deceased, she is entitled to be in the party array, hence her prayer cannot be rejected. In para 8 of the decision in Spring Meadows Hospital case (supra), among other things the Supreme Court observes at page 46 : "The Act gives a comprehensive definition of consumer who is the principal beneficiary of the legislation but at the same time in view of the comprehensive definition of the term "consumer" even a member of the family cannot be denied the status of consumer under the Act and in an action by any such member of the family for any deficiency of service, it will not be open for a trader to take a stand that there is no privity of contract". Now as has already been noticed, the mother herself has come with a petition to get herself impleaded as the supplemental second complainant; the technicalities need not prevail in these matters particularly in a case under the Consumer Protection Act. As already noticed, as the mother is entitled to maintain a complaint there is no reason why her prayer to come on record as the additional complainant should be refused. Therefore, I.A. 922/99 is allowed the complainant will incorporate the petitioner in I.A. 922/99 as the additional second complainant. The defence that the complaint is not maintainable cannot be sustained and the said objection is overruled. Carry out the amendment and for additional version if any the complaint is posted to 11.11.1999. There will be no order as to costs. I.A. allowed.