COSMOPOLITAN HOSPITALS Vs. VASANTHA P.NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by M/s. Cosmopolitan Hospitals (P) Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram as appellant No. 1 and one Dr. K. Venugopalan Nair, Senior Consultant in Orthopaedics in the said hospital as appellant No. 2 who are figuring as opposite parties in a complaint petition " complaint No. 123 of 1990 " pending on the file of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said complaint has been preferred against the appellants by the respondent herein, who is the widow of one G.P. Nair, who was a Company Executive in M/s. Aluminium Industries Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. Mr. G.P. Nair was admitted in the appellant hospital on September 7, 1989 with persistent back pain. It is not in dispute that for the admission and treatment of patients in the appellant hospital, charges are collected by the hospital. The ailment of Mr. G.P. Nair was initially diagnosed in the hospital as tuberculosis and treatment was started on that basis. It is alleged that in the course of said treatment, the patient exhibited other symptoms on the basis of which it was later diagnosed to be a case of jaundice and in view thereof he was treated in the hospital for that condition by one Dr. P.P. Joseph from September 15,1989. It would appear that the condition of the patient progressively grew worse and hence on September 17,1989 he was referred to the Gastro Enterology Department of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram where better facilities could be had for diagnosis and treatment. The patient was shifted to the Medical College Hospital only on September 18, 1989 and while undergoing treatment there, he expired on September 28,1989. The complaint petition was thereafter filed by the respondent herein widow of the deceased seeking to recover a compensation of Rs. 5,67,776/ - from the opposite parties on the plea that they were criminally negligent in their diagnosis and treatment of late Mr. G.P. Nair while he was under their care and treatment in the first appellant hospital and had they been careful, his valuable life could have been saved.

(2.) THE opposite parties filed a joint version before the State Commission wherein they categorically repudiated the charge of negligence and also contended that the complainant had no cause of action against them and is not entitled to initiate proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) since he is not a consumer and the treatment rendered in the hospital does not constitute service as defined in the Act. On the above basis it was contended that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint.

(3.) THE State Commission took up for consideration the questions of locus standi and jurisdiction as preliminary issues and after a detailed discussion of all the relevant aspects, it has recorded the finding that the complainant who is the widow of the deceased patient is a consumer entitled to invoke the redressal machinery provided under the Act and that the activity carried on by the appellant hospital of rendering medical treatment for consideration is a service as defined in the Act and hence it is within the jurisdiction of the Redressal Forums constituted under the Act to entertain and adjudicate upon a complaint relating to alleged deficiency in such service. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the said decision rendered by the State Commission on the preliminary issue.