COMPETITION LAW

CASE SUMMARY

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION vs. VP SHANTHA

Equivalent Citation: AIR1996SC550

Appellants: Indian Medical Association

Respondent: V.P. Shantha and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kuldip Singh, S.C. Agrawal and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.

Decided On: 13.11.1995

H. Mohamed Abdul Raaziq

BC0150015

1
 INTRODUCTION
Customer Protection Act was established in 1986 as to ensure shopper. The Consumer Protection
Bill, 1986 looks to accommodate better security of the interests of shoppers and for the reason, to
make arrangement for the foundation of Consumer boards and different experts for the settlement
of customer debate and for issue associated therewith. It looks for, bury alia, to advance and ensure
the privileges of buyers, for example,

The privilege to be ensured against showcasing of merchandise which are dangerous to life and
property;

Ø The privilege to be educated about the quality, amount, and intensity, virtue, standard and cost
of merchandise to secure the shopper against unjustifiable exchange rehearses;

Ø The privilege to be guaranteed, wherever conceivable, access to a specialist of products at

aggressive costs;

Ø The privilege to be heard and to be guaranteed that customer’s interests will get due thought at
appropriate forums;

Ø The privilege to look for redressal against uncalled for exchange rehearses or corrupt misuse of
consumers;and

Ø The privilege to customer training.

As there were expanding case identifying with Doctor (Medical) Negligence, and it was
questionable that whether medicinal administrations are benefits under COPRA, 1986 or not and
whether emergency clinic or specialist or restorative professional is in the ambit of COPRA, 1986
or not. Additionally, there were diverse differentiating and clashing choices and method of
reasoning with respect to this issue were given by different High Courts and other lower courts.
Numerous a Special Leave Petition were documented in the Supreme Court against choices and
decisions of subordinate courts. Preeminent Court confronted extremely huge progression of SLPs
coming in. Consequently, in this PIL, a writ was recorded in Supreme Court under Article 32 of
Constitution of India, to settle on Scope and Jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The plaintiff’s husband died due to negligence of the doctors.
2. The treatment was done in government hospital no fees was charged therefore no
compensation could be paid as government hospitals and other honorary authorities which
render their services free of charges did not fall under the purview of the CPA.
3. The case was dismissed and subsequently the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Supreme Court
of India. National commission contended that since free services do not come under the
purview of the CPA, the National Commission was justified in dismissing the case.

ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION

Whether the free medical services provided by the government hospitals covered under Consumer
Protection Act of 1986 or not?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
First issue which was brought up in appeal managed administrations of medicinal expert are
benefits under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was battled from the side of respondent IMA
that law recognizes calling and occupation and the Act incorporate just word related
administrations not those of expert administrations under Section 2(1) (o) of the Act. In this way,
therapeutic calling being an expert administration ought not to be secured under the Act.

This contention was dismissed by Hon'ble Judge as he said that therapeutic specialist should be
held at risk when they are careless and to discover their carelessness Bolam test is sufficiently
adequate.

Respondent contended that as Section 2(1) (g) contains certain premise on which administration
can be treated as insufficient. Since, these premise are constrained and unbending, likewise have
less application in therapeutic administrations.

This dispute was likewise dismissed as area 14 (1) (d) incorporates into discovering court may
grant remuneration on premise of harm endured by carelessness of inverse gathering.

It was encouraged from side of respondent that restorative administrations are Contract of
individual administration which infers that therapeutic administrations are not benefits under

3
Section 2(1) (o) as Contract of individual administration is exclusionary part of the
administrations.

This contention was disregarded by alluding a case Dharangdhara Chemical Works Ltd. v State of
Saurashtra, which recognizes Contract of administration and Contact for administration.
Unimportant trustee relationship does not offer impact to and since there is no ace worker
connection among Doctor and Patient, it won't result into Contract of Service.

Other contention which was raised by respondent was that "administration" does exclude any such
term therapeutic administration, so restorative administration are not in the domain of the Act.

This contention was dismissed as meaning of administration isn't restricted yet it is a having three
sections for example Principle part, inclusionary part, exclusionary part. Despite the fact that
fundamental part does exclude restorative administrations but rather inclusionary part of the
definition have more extensive degree and spreads medicinal administrations.

Thus, It was held by the Court that therapeutic administrations will be treated as administrations
as per Section 2(1) (o) of the Act, hereinafter the potential client will be said buyer of restorative
administrations.

Second issue which was raised addressed emergency clinics and nursing homes are in the extent
of the Act. There were made three general classifications under which nature administrations of
specialists/medical clinic can be resolved:-

a. Administrations rendered gratis to everyone.

b. Charges paid by all clients.

c. Charges are required to be paid by all individual aside from those, who can't bear
(administrations are rendered free)

There is no trouble in discovering obligation in initial two classifications as when administrations

are rendered for nothing out of pocket there is no administration rendered as indicated by Section
2(1) (o) of the Act thus rejected by temperance of exclusionary provision of the Section.
Additionally token cash will be treated as no thought paid. Be that as it may, it wo exclude those
autonomous specialists who are rendering administration for nothing out of pocket. What's more,
in second class if an individual is paying thought it will gone under locale of the Act as medicinal
administrations are administrations and thought is paid to profit them.

4
It was opined by Hon'ble Judge that since patients, who are profiting administrations for nothing
out of pocket, having a place with third class are recipient as patients who are paying thought in
that classification are, really, paying for non-paying patients as well. So being recipient they are
under extent of the Act. Consequently are treated as shopper under Section 2(1) (d) of the Act.

FINAL JUDGEMENT
1. Medical Services are treated as in ambit of "administrations" under Section 2(1) (o) of the
Act.

• It isn't contract of individual administration as there is nonappearance of ace worker

relationship.

• Contract of administration in Section 2(1) (o) can't be limited to contracts for work of
residential hirelings as it were. The administrations rendered to business are not secured under
the Act.

2. Therapeutic Services rendered by medical clinic/nursing home for nothing out of pocket are
not in the domain of Section 2(1) (o) of the Act.

3. Therapeutic Services rendered by autonomous Doctor for nothing out of pocket are under
Section 2(1) (o) of the locale of the Act.

4. Therapeutic Services rendered against installment of thought are in the extent of the Act.

5. A therapeutic administration where installment of thought is paid by outsider is treated as in

the ambit of the Act.

6. Clinic in which some individual are charged and some are exempted from charging in light of
their failure of bearing such administrations will be treated as customer under of Section 2(1) (d)
of the Act

5
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

1. This case offered impact to shoppers who were experiencing restorative carelessness and
incorporating therapeutic administrations in the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
empowered customer to get progressively quick and shabby equity. As this is the primary point
of the Act.

2. This case likewise separated contract for administration and contract of administration, in
regard of therapeutic practice and calling.

3. Arrangement of risk which it set up isn't proper on the off chance that where patients are not
treated as shopper even in government medical clinic benefiting administrations for nothing out
of pocket. It is question of normal inner voice and value as individual who are profiting
administrations in government medical clinic are not monetarily stable that is the reason they are
benefiting administrations in government emergency clinic. It is purpose of reexamination.

4. Emergency clinic rendering administrations for nothing out of pocket are outside the domain
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As some altruistic trust don't have benefit rationale they
can be sued in either polite case yet not in Consumer court.

6
CONCLUSION
The service rendered free of charge by a medical practitioner attached to or employed by a hospital,
whether governmental or non-governmental, or a nursing home, or a health centre or a dispensary
where no charge is made from any person availing of such service and all patients are given free
service is excluded by exclusionary provision of section 2(1) (o).

The court held the above after rejecting the contentions that nominal registration fee or the medical
officer’s salary for employment in the hospital or , the taxpayers’ money contributing to
functioning of government hospitals or health dispensaries , would constitute consideration for
free services rendered in such cases.

The exclusionary part of the definition in section 2(1)(o) does not obviously cover service rendered
at a non-governmental hospital or nursing home where charges are required to be paid by persons
availing such services and therefore , falls within the purview of the expression services as defined
under the Act.

It was held that services rendered at a government hospital, health centre or dispensary where such
services are rendered on payment of charges and also rendered free of charge would fall within the
scope of the Act, the persons belonging to the poor class who were provided services free of charge
were held to be the beneficiaries of the services which is hired or availed of by the paying class.

However in the definition of consumers as under section 2(1) (d), a person can become a
beneficiary only with the approval of the person who has paid the consideration. In this case, there
is no approval which may be obtained and hence it is doubtful whether the concept of beneficiaries
can be extended as has been done. If the concept of beneficiaries has thus been extended, then the
court should not have had any hesitance in holding that the people who avail of free services when
such services are not paid for by any other recipient of the service can also be made consumers
since they are the beneficiaries of the tax payers, albeit without their approval.

7
CASES REFERRED

 Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582

 Dharangdhara Chemical Works Ltd. v State of Saurashtra, AIR 1957 SC 264
 Lucknow Development Authority v M.K. Gupta, 1994 AIR 787
 Cosmopolitan Hospitals vs W Santha ,1992(24)DRJ310

STATUTES REFERRED

 Consumer Protection Act , 1986