Free Services Also Covered Under Consumer Protection Laws: Consumer Commission
In a significant legal clarification, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has affirmed that services provided free of cost do come under the ambit of consumer protection laws. This ruling came during the appeal against a 13-year-old decision by the Haridwar District Commission.
The case in question dates back to 2008, where a woman filed a complaint against a doctor in Haridwar, alleging negligence during her treatment, which
led to her deteriorating health and the subsequent death of her unborn child. On April 6, 2011, the Haridwar District Commission acknowledged the doctor’s fault and ordered compensation of ₹17.60 lakhs.
During the appeal, the defense argued that the patient had not been charged for the treatment, suggesting that the service should not be covered under the Consumer Protection Act. They contended that the district commission should not have accepted the complaint.
Rejecting this argument, the State Commission, chaired by Kumkum Rani with member B.S. Manral, referenced a Supreme Court decision in the IMA vs V.P. Santha, decided on 13-11-1995
case, which stated that even free services are considered services under the law. After a thorough review of all aspects of the case, the State Commission overturned the district commission’s decision to award compensation, delivering their final judgment on August 30.
Guidelines of the Supreme Court given in the case of IMA Vs V.P.Santha & Ors.
(1) Service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner (except where the doctor renders service free of charge to every patient or under a contract of personal service), by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, would fall within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
(2) The fact that medical practitioners belong to the medical profession and are subject to the disciplinary control of the Medical Council of India and/or State Medical Councils constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act would not exclude the services rendered by them from the ambit of the Act.
(3) A ‘contract of personal service’ has to be distinguished from a ‘contact for personal services’. In the absence of a relationship of master and servant between the patient and medical practitioner, the service rendered by a medical practitioner to the patient cannot be regarded as service rendered under a ‘contract of persona] service’. Such service is service rendered under a ‘contract for personal services’ and is not covered by exclusionary clause of the definition of ‘service’ contained in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
(4) The expression ‘contract of personal service’ in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act cannot be confined to contracts for employment of domestic servants only and the said expression would include the employment of a medical officer for the purpose of rendering medical service to the employer. The service rendered by a medical officer to his employer under the contract of employment would be outside the purview of ‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
(5) Service rendered free of charge by a medical practitioner attached to a hospital/Nursing home or a medical officer employed in a hospital/Nursing home where such services are rendered free of charge to everybody, would not be “service” as defined in Section 2(1) (o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital/nursing home would not alter the position.
(6) Service rendered at a non-Government hospital/Nursing home where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the service and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service – is outside the purview of the expression ‘service’ as defined in Section 2 (1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital/Nursing home would not alter the position.
(7) Service rendered at a non-Government hospital/Nursing home where charges are required to be paid by the persons availing such services falls within the purview of the expression ‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
(8) Service rendered at a non-Government hospital/Nursing home where charges are required to be paid by persons who are in a
position to pay and persons who cannot afford to pay arc rendered service free of charge would fall within the ambit of the expression
‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the service is rendered free of charge to persons who are not in a
position to pay for such services. Free service, would also be “service” and the recipient a “consumer” under the Act.
(9) Service rendered at a Government hospital/health center/dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service – is outside the purview of the expression ‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital/nursing home would not alter the position.
(10) Service rendered at a Government hospital/health center/dispensary where services are rendered on payment of charges and also rendered free of charge to other persons availing such services would fall within the ambit of the expression ‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the service is rendered free of charge to persons who do not pay for such service. Free service would also be “service” and the recipient a “consumer” under the Act.
(11) Service rendered by a medical practitioner or hospital/nursing home cannot be regarded as service rendered free of charge, if the
person availing the service has taken an insurance policy for medical care whereunder the charges for consultation, diagnosis and medical
treatment are borne by the insurance company and such service would fall within the ambit of ‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of
the Act.
(12) Similarly, where, as a part of the conditions of service, the employer bears the expenses of medical treatment of an employee and
his family members dependent on him, the service rendered to such an employee and his family members by a medical practitioner or a
hospital/nursing home would not be free of charge and would constitute ‘service’ u/s 2(1)(o) of the Act.