Today is fixed for hearing the case on the ground of maintainability. Ld. Adv. for the OP filed a petition on 12.08.22 praying for rejecting the petition on the ground of non-maintainability stating that the patient was admitted in Lalbagh S.D. Hospital. No charges for treatment was paid by the patient or her behalf. The Hospital render services to the parties totally free of cost. In order to be a consumer one must pay amount to the authority to get services. So the Petitioner cannot be a consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. In support of his contention Ld. Advocate for the OPs cited a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in Major Singh vs State of Punjab & Ors. on 5th November, 2014. Ld. Advocate for the OPs drew our attention to Para 6 of the said decision which may be quoted here : “6. Learned State Commission placed reliance on judgment of Honble Apex Court in Law Finder Doc Id # 71349 = 1996 (1) Consumer Law Today 1 (SC) Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors. and held that complainant does not fall with purview of consumer. Paragraph 44 of the aforesaid judgment runs as under: The other part of exclusionary clause relates to services rendered “free of charge”. The medical practitioners, Government hospitals/ nursing homes and private hospitals/nursing homes (hereinafter called “doctors and hospitals”) broadly fall in three categories :- - where services are rendered free of charge to everybody availing the said services.
- where charges are required to be paid by everybody availing the services and
- where charges are required to be paid by persons availing services but certain categories of persons who cannot afford to pay are rendered service free of charges.
There is no difficulty in respect of first two categories. Doctors and hospitals who render service without any charge whatsoever to every person availing the service would not fall within the ambit of “service” under Section 2(1) (o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purposes only would not alter the position in respect of such doctors and hospitals. So far as the second category is concerned, since the service is rendered on payment basis to all the persons they would clearly fall within the ambit of Section 2(1) (o) of the Act. The third category of doctors and hospitals do provide free service to some of the patients belonging to the poor class but the bulk of the service is rendered to the patients on payment basis. The expenses incurred for providing free service are met out of the income from the service rendered to the paying patients. The service rendered by such doctors and hospitals to paying patients undoubtedly fall within the ambit of Section 2(1) (o) of the Act. In the light of aforesaid observation it becomes clear that where services are rendered free of charge to everybody availing the said services, patient does not fall within purview of consumer. In the case in hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place any document on record to prove that OPs were not rendering services to the Complainant free of charge and in such circumstances, complainant does not fall within purview of consumer. In the result, the Consumer case fails. Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is Ordered that the complaint Case No. CC/106/2021 be and the same is dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability against the OPs. Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action. The Final Order will also be available in the following Website: confonet.nic.in Dictated & corrected by me. President Member President | 
