PRAHRI CONSUMER WELFARE ASSOCIATION vs GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY

BY means of this complaint, the complainant has prayed for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation on account of failure of operation, Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental tension. He has also prayed for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for up-bringing the child.

THE facts of the case, according to the complainant, are that he is a Class IV employee of N.E. Railway working as Peon. Mrs. Mayadevi is his wife. THEy are given free medical treatment from the Railway Hospital. According to the complainant, the facilities given by some hospitals and on the basis of documents submitted by the employee, reimbursement is done. Similarly the Railway has its own hospital end medical facilities which are made available to its employees. No medical allowance is given to the employees and in lieu of this allowance, free treatment is given. THEre is contribution of the employees towards these medical facilities. The complainant had two sons and two daughters in the year 1991. The complainant No. 3 was pregnant and had to delivery a child. Keeping in view the fact that the complainant could not bear the burden of more children, the complainant No. 3 decided to get vasectomy done. For this purpose complainant No. 3 was admitted in the hospital on 11.12.1991 in the N.E. Hospital at Badshahnagar. On 11.12.1991 a child was born and on 14.12.1991 the vasectomy operation was done. Complainant No. 3 was discharged on 23.12.1991.

It is alleged that in the year 1996 the complainant No. 3 developed certain symptoms and for two months she skipped her menstruation. She had vomiting also. Thereafter she was admitted in the hospital on 21.5.1996 at Railway Hospital, Izatnagar, Bareilly. It was disclosed that the complainant No. 3 had again become pregnant. The complainant No. 3 wanted to get abortion done but it was told by the doctor that on account of the weak condition of the complainant No. 3, abortion cannot be done and she was discharged from the hospital. The complainant No. 3 gave birth to a female child on 9.12.1996. At that time the doctors refused to do the vasectomy operation and advised to get it done after six months. According to the complainant, the complainant suffered economically and mentally on account of the birth of the child. The complainant No. 3 is also very weak.

A preliminary objection was raised by the opposite party, Railways, that free treatment is given at the Railway Hospital and no charges are made there. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation in view of the pronouncement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. There was no contract or service between the Railway Hospital and the complainant. The family planning programme is a scheme of the Indian Government which provides free service to the Central and State Government servants. It is also alleged that such operations are not 100% successful as has been held in a number of cases. According to the opposite party this has also been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It is further alleged that there was no element of hiring of service. Therefore, no compensation is to be paid. On the date of hearing the complainant was absent and hence learned Counsel for the opposite party was heard.

LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party has argued that in the present case the services rendered to the complainant No. 3 by the Railway Hospital were free of cost and no charges were taken from the complainant No. 3. The complainant No. 3 herself has alleged that she has only paid the charges for food etc. In the complaint it has nowhere been alleged that any fee was paid by her for undergoing this operation. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has categorically held that in those cases where free service is rendered in a hospital to all patients, there is no element of service involved and the person who avails such a service is not a consumer under the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. As this point is concluded by the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, we cannot go beyond the dictum and hold that in this case where the complainant No. 3 has not paid any amount towards the service rendered by the Railway Hospital, she is not a consumer and she cannot claim any compensation from the Railway, the opposite party. We are not entering into the merits of the case simply because on the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party we are convinced that the complainant No. 3 had availed of free service of the Railway Hospital and as such she cannot claim any damages from the Railway Hospital. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Order The complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs.

LET copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Complaint dismissed.