DAYA vs ROHIT GOEL

THIS is a complaint case filed by Smt. Daya claiming damages and compensation amounting to Rs. 17,50,000/- and interest of 24% per annum alongwith cost of Rs. 7,500/-.

THE facts which need to be mentioned for the purpose of deciding the jurisdiction are that late Ram Gopal Singh was admitted in the G.M. & Associated Hospitals in the Orthopaedics department for his treament on 8.6.1998. He was admitted after being injured at his residence. It is alleged that the complainant was operated upon without the consent of the family members at about 11.30 and after this he was transferred to ICU from the Operation THEatre. Ultimately he died on 12.6.1998 at 1.30 a.m. According to her, there was negligence of the doctors in treatment of her husband on account of which he died. Learned Counsel for the complainant was asked to show as to how the complainant could continue this complaint in the face of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Medical Council v. V.P. Shantha, III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), in which it has been decided that if a service is rendered free, then the case cannot be covered under the Consumer Protection Act. According to learned Counsel, in G.M. & Associated Hospitals free service is also given to the patients who are admitted to private wards. Learned Counsel has on behalf of the complainant, failed to show that payment is also made at G.M. & Associated Hospitals for treatment of patients because there is no evidence on record to prove this fact.

If there was service on payment, then the complainant should have filed some evidence to show that in G.M. & Associated Hospitals service is on payment basis also. If the service on payment basis is also proved in the same hospital for which free service is also given, then the complainant could have maintained the complaint.

TWO papers have been filed by the complainant to show that payment is also made for service rendered in this hospital. The first paper relates to Jagwati Devi issued by Reservation Assistant of the Hospital, Lucknow. It appears the date is 1.11.1996. A perusal of it goes to show that if the occupant of private ward No. 36 has cleared dues upto 1.10.1996, then he may be allowed to go home if the doctor in charge of the case has discharged him. Similarly Annexure No. 2 of this application dated 14.9.1999 goes to show that one Prof. H. Chandra of Private Ward No. 36 has been relieved on 1.10.1996. These two papers do not disclose the nature of payment made by the person who was admitted to the hospital. It is just possible that the payment made was of rent payable for the private ward. These papers do not show that any payment was made for the service rendered by the hospital's doctor or staff. In a private ward the patient has to bear the cost of medicine, his food and rent of the room but the medical services are not provided on payment, but they are free of charge. In a general ward, no charges are taken from a patient who is admitted and treated there. There private ward give certain extra facilities to a patient which are not available to patients who are admitted in general wards. Thus we find that the complainant has failed to show that in G.M. & Associated Hospitals, services are rendered by the hospital on payment of charges. Hence the complainant cannot maintain this complaint against the doctors and the hospital. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Order The complaint is dismissed. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint dismissed.