ISMAIL Vs. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of Writ Petitions, the question for consideration is whether this Court should interfere under Art. 226of the Cons tuition of INdia with the disposal of cases filed by various persons, claiming to be consumers, against doctors or hospitals seeking relief under the Consumer protection Act, 1986 (Central Act 68 of 1986 ).

(2.) AS the question is a general question, it will not be necessary for us to mention facts relating to all cases. Cases have been filed by various persons claiming to be consumers seeking various reliefs under the consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum or before the State commission. The Consumer Forum concerned has issued notices to the petitioners who are either doctors or hospitals requiring them to contest the cases. Soon after the receipt of the notices, the doctors or the hospitals have approached this Court and obtained orders of stay.

(3.) AT the outset, it must be stated that subsequent to the filing of some of the Writ Petitions in 1991, the State Commission in kerala has decided in the matter relating to Cosmopolitan Hospital that doctors and hospitals are covered by the Consumer Protection Act. The said decision was carried in appeal before the Nations Commission, and the appeal was dismissed in the decision reported in Cosmopolitan Hospital v. Vasantha P. Nair, 1992 (1)CPR 820 (NCDRC ). Against the decision in Cosmopolitan Hospital's case, Special leave Petition has been filed before the Supreme Court of India, the Supreme court has directed the Consumer Court concerned to go ahead with the enquiry, but directed that it should not pass final orders.