S.Venkatraman vs M.CHANDRASEKARAN

THE appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Sivaganga dated 2.4.93 in O.P. 35/92.

THE complainant was employed in Sakthi Sugar Mills, Sivagangai. On 20.11.91, while he was working in the mill he fell down from a height of 30 feet. He approached the Opp. Party Dr. Venkataraman who wanted him to take X-ray. After seeing the X-ray he said that there was no fracture and gave some tablets for pain and recommended for him 3% days leave. On 25.11.91 the complainant went to work but was feeling ill. On 26.11.91 he went to Dr. Subramanian, Madurai and consulted him. THE said Doctor opined that there was a fracture and recommended for 3 weeks bedrest. THE Opp. Party did not accept that opinion. THE case of the complainant is that the Opp. Party did not correctly scrutinize the X-ray and committed deficiency in service. He claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The Opp. Party contended that treatment was done without any charges and the complainant is not therefore a consumer. It was further contended that the X-ray did not show any fracture. However the complainant was asked to go to Madurai and to get an expert opinion. He did not furnish any further certificate . There was no deficiency.

The District Forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Opp. Party and directed him to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- within a month in default to suffer S.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 8,000/-. Hence this appeal.

IT may at once be pointed out that the default sentence imposed by the District Forum is totally untenable. In spite of repeated assertions by this Commission that such a composite order could not be passed. IT is unfortunate that the District Forum has passed such an order. The default sentence has therefore to be set aside. The question for consideration is whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, as according to the Opp. Party, the service has been rendered free of charge. Doctor S. Venkatesan has been examined as RW2. It is his evidence that he is employed as a Doctor in V.M. Kailasam Hospital run by Voluntary Health Services, Erode. Exh. B6 is the appointment order dated 2.11.89 issued to him by the Voluntary Health Services. The Voluntary Health Services runs Hospital at Erode and another at Sivaganga. The hospital is known as V.M. Kailasam Hospital. At Erode it is situate outside the Sakthi Sugar Mills Ltd., Complex whereas at Sivaganaga it is inside the Mill. That circumstance cannot lead to the conclusion that the Opp. Party is an employee of the Mill. RW 1 is Labour Officer of Sakthi Sugar Mills Ltd., Sivaganga. It is his evidence that the Opp. Party is not an employee of the Sakthi Sugar Mills, he is employed only by the Voluntary Health Services and no payment is made by Sakthi Sugar Mills to the Opp. Party. The District Forum has refused to accept this contention merely on the ground that the Exh. B8 the Pay Roll Slip shows that the sum of Rs. 3.31/- has been deducted towards Employees Provident Fund and a sum of Rs. 29/- has been deducted as Family Provident Fund. It is therefore assumed by the District Forum that he must be an employee of Sakthi Sugar Mills. The Voluntary Health Services which run V.M. Kailasam Hospital is also entitled to deduct Employees Provident Fund and Family Provident Fund. Exh. A6 clearly establishes that the Opp. Party has been appointed as Doctor in V.M. Kailasam Hospital by the Voluntary Health Services. The service of this Hospital is utilised by the Sakthi Sugar Mills for treating their employees but that can not lead to the conclusion that the Doctor employed in V.M. Hospital is an employee of Sakthi Sugar Mills. Admittedly the complainant has not paid any charge to V.M. Hospital or to the Opp. Party for treatment and hence the services rendered by the Opp. Party is not service within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(o)of the Act, as it has been rendered free of charges. The complainant is not therefore a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and the complaint is not maintainable. The District Forum has not properly appreciated the matter on this aspect. On this short ground the appeal has to be allowed and the complaint dismissed.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed, but without costs throughout. Appeal allowed.