The Court held that medical services fall within the ambit of Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, unless the service is free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
"A reading of the inclusive part in Section 2(42) would show that the Parliament intended to specifically underline that certain services like Banking, Financing, Insurance, Transport, etc., which are in the nature of public utility services, would come within the purview of ‘services’. The definition is inclusive and not exhaustive. Therefore, all services which are made available to potential users would fall under Section 2(42), except those services rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service. The words “but not limited to” appearing in Section 2(42) clarifies the intention of the Parliament", the Court observed.
The judgment was passed in a petition moved by several doctors against whom the respondent had filed a complaint at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking compensation of ₹32,52,000 for loss of eyesight that was allegedly caused due to their medical negligence.
The petitioners had challenged the maintainability of the complaint before the District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, which dismissed the same.
Thereafter, they approached the High Court for a direction declaring that the orders of the District and State Commissions were sans jurisdiction and hence illegal.
The High Court said that the District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions can consider complaints against doctors for negligence in services provided except when it is free of charge.
The High Court dismissed the petition.
* Discussed Judgment of Supreme Court:
No comments:
Post a Comment