CONSUMER UNITY AND TRUST SOCIETY JAIPUR Vs. SECRETARY MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT JAIPUR AND DIRECTOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT FAMILY WELFARE JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complaint under Ss. 12 (l) (b) and 17 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. LXVIII of 1986), (for short "the Act" hereinafter) filed by Shri Pradeep S. Mehta, General Secretary, Consumer Unity and Trust Society (CUTS) for compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,31,000/- and certain other directions for proper medical treatment, payment of bills relating to the purchase of medicines etc. , on account of negligence and carelessness of Dr. B. L. Gochar (opposite-party no. 2), Civil Surgeon, Kota while performing an operation for sterilization (Abdominal Tubectomy) upon Smt. Sushila Devi w/o Shri Brajmohan Pareta resident of Lakheri, District Bundi. The complaint is dated August 19, 1988. It may be mentioned that Shri Brajmohan Pareta ('the applicant' for the sake of convenience) husband of Smt. Sushila Devi submitted an application dated July 27, 1988 to the General Secretary, Consumer Unity and Trust Society (CUTS) complaining of the negligence of the doctor while performing the operation and carelessness in looking after the patient after the operation. The CUTS took the cause of the applicant and after correspondence with the authorities, ultimately, filed this complaint. The complaint is accompanied by some documents.

(2.) THIS complaint has been registered as Complaint no. 1 of 1988. Notices were ordered to be issued to the complainant Shri Pradeep S. Mehta, General Secretary and opposite-party no. 1 State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur and also through the Director, Medical and Health Department, (Family Welfare), Jaipur and opposite-party no. 2 Dr. B. L. Gochar, Civil Surgeon, Kota. Notices were sent to the complainant as well as to the opposite-parties by registered post. Acknowledgement of the notice of Dr. B. L. Gochar, which was sent by registered post on November 18, 1988 has not been received after service. The registered envelope has not been received undelivered though* more than three weeks had passed when the complaint was fixed for hearing on December 14,. 1988. Nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite-party no. 1 despite service.

(3.) IT was put to Shri Pradeep Mehta, General Secretary, CUTS, as to how this complaint can be entertained by the State Commission in view of the definition of "consumer" mentioned in S. 2 (1) (d) of the Act as Shri Brajmohan Pareta (applicant) has not hired any service for consideration for the operation performed upon his wife (Smt. Sushila Devi ). S. 2 (1) (o) of the Act is as under: - " (o) 'service' means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of (personal service. "