9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (5) TMI 567 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the service rendered by an ESI hospital is gratuitous or not and consequently whether it falls within the ambit of service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986? Whether Section 74 read with Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 ousts the jurisdiction of the consumer forum as regards the issues involved for consideration? Held that - The appellant is a consumer within the ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the medical service rendered in the ESI hospital/dispensary by the respondent Corporation falls within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore the consumer forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the case of the appellant. We further hold that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum is not ousted by virtue of sub-section (1) or (2) or (3) of Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the service rendered by an ESI hospital is gratuitous or not, and consequently whether it falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether Section 74 read with Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ousts the jurisdiction of the consumer forum as regards the issues involved for consideration? Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the service rendered by an ESI hospital is gratuitous or not, and consequently whether it falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? The appellant was insured under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) and his contributions were regularly deducted and deposited by his employer. His wife received treatment at an ESI dispensary, which was alleged to be negligent. The appellant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CP Act) seeking compensation for the negligence. The Corporation argued that the services were gratuitous and thus outside the purview of the CP Act. The District Consumer Forum, State Commission, and National Commission all held that the services rendered by the ESI dispensary were gratuitous, relying on the precedent set in Birbal Singh v. ESI Corporation and Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha. However, the Supreme Court analyzed the definitions of 'consumer' and 'service' under the CP Act, noting that the Act aims to protect consumers who pay for goods and services. The Court emphasized that services rendered under an insurance scheme, where charges are borne by the insurer, fall within the ambit of 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the CP Act. The Court cited Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, which distinguished between 'contract of service' and 'contract for service,' and held that services rendered under an insurance scheme are not gratuitous. The Court also referred to Laxman Thamappa Kotgiri v. G.M. Central Railway, where services provided as part of employment conditions were deemed not gratuitous. The Court concluded that the service provided by the ESI hospital/dispensary falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined in the CP Act. 2. Whether Section 74 read with Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ousts the jurisdiction of the consumer forum as regards the issues involved for consideration? The respondent argued that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum was ousted by Sections 74 and 75 of the ESI Act, which establish the Employees' Insurance Court to decide disputes related to benefits under the ESI Act. The Court examined the relevant provisions and noted that the Employees' Insurance Court has jurisdiction over specific matters, such as the rate of wages, contributions, and benefits under the ESI Act. The Court emphasized that the CP Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at the speedy disposal of consumer disputes and should be interpreted broadly. It noted that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum should not be curtailed unless expressly prohibited by another statute. The Court found that the appellant's claim for damages due to medical negligence did not fall within the specific matters to be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75 of the ESI Act. The Court held that the appellant's claim for damages due to medical negligence is a consumer dispute and falls within the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. It further held that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum is not ousted by Sections 74 and 75 of the ESI Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, for decision in accordance with the law laid down in the judgment. The Court concluded that the appellant is a consumer within the ambit of the CP Act, and the medical service rendered in the ESI hospital/dispensary falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined in the CP Act. The jurisdiction of the consumer forum is not ousted by the provisions of the ESI Act.
|
