2021 (9) TMI 1158 - SC - Indian Laws

Joint Hindu Family - Maintainability of complaint - appellant had availed the services for consideration on behalf of his sister-in-law, being the Karta of Joint Hindu Family - whether the appellant could file a complaint in respect of deficiency in service on part of the respondent regarding the treatment given to his sister-in-law Kiran Srivastava? - HELD THAT - A consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised and includes a beneficiary of services. The brother-in-law of a pregnant woman would not be a beneficiary of any services rendered by the respondent. There is no allegation that he has paid or promised any consideration for engaging the services of the respondent. The only assertion in the complaint is that he is the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family, therefore, he is entitled to file a complaint on account of the alleged deficiency of service by the respondent. The appellant herein is the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family. He cannot be said to be availing the services of a medical practitioner in respect of the pregnancy of his sister-in-law. The concept of Joint Hindu Family does not extend to the treatment of a pregnant sister-in-law. It is needless to mention that no objection regarding maintainability of complaint was raised either before the State Commission or the National Commission, but such issue of maintainability of the complaint goes to the root of the case and it is found to be non-maintainable on the bare assertions of the complaint alone. The complaint itself was not maintainable - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of the complaint by the appellant as the brother-in-law of the pregnant woman under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of whether the appellant, as the brother-in-law of a pregnant woman, could file a complaint regarding the alleged deficiency in service by a medical practitioner under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant argued that being the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family, he had availed the services for consideration on behalf of his sister-in-law, making the complaint maintainable. However, the court examined the definitions of 'complainant' and 'consumer' under the Act. A 'complainant' is defined under Section 2(1)(b) as a consumer or a legal heir making a complaint, while a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) includes any person who hires or avails services for consideration. The court referred to judgments where parents of a child and farmers were considered beneficiaries and consumers under the Act.

The court emphasized that a consumer is someone who hires or avails services for consideration and includes beneficiaries. In this case, the brother-in-law of the pregnant woman was not a beneficiary of the medical services provided, nor had he paid or promised any consideration for the services. The court distinguished the appellant's situation from cases where parents of a child or farmers were considered beneficiaries and consumers. The court highlighted that the concept of Joint Hindu Family does not extend to medical treatment decisions for a pregnant sister-in-law. The court found the complaint non-maintainable based on the bare assertions in the complaint alone, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the scope of who can be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing the requirement of hiring or availing services for consideration to establish consumer status. The court's decision underscores the importance of fulfilling the statutory definitions to maintain a complaint under the Act, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal in this case.