A.S.SIBIA (BRIG.)(RETIRED) vs UNION OF INDIA

PETITIONER before us, an Army Officer (retired), is aggrieved by the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing his appeal and upholding the order of the District Forum. Complaint of the petitioner was for alleged deficiency in service on account of medical negligence in the treatment of his wife who suffered from burn injuries and was getting treatment in the military hospital where she died.

THERE are as many as 10 opposite party-respondents. Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 would appear to be doctors, all Army Officers. District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the petitioner was not a consumer and the military hospital where the deceased wife of the petitioner got treatment rendering service free of charge and it would not mean service within the meaning of Clause (o) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Admittedly no consideration was paid by the petitioner or his deceased wife for the treatment rendered to the petitioner''s deceased wife in the military hospital. It is also admitted that doctors attending on her did not charge any fee. In fact, no consideration passed. Mr. Mahesh Kasana, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the earlier order of this Commission remanding the case to the District Forum. He says that finding of the District Forum and State Commission would be contrary to what the National Commission had said earlier and that would also amount to reviewing of its own order. We do not think such an argument has any basis. Supreme Court in the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Santha and Ors., III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), decided on 13th November, 1995, had clearly laid down the principles for proceeding in the case of medical negligence defining explicitly what would be service within the meaning of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition. This revision petition is dismissed.