Family’s Complaint Revived After Patient’s Death in Post-Surgery Care
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has ruled that even if a hospital does not charge a patient, the services it provides still fall under the definition of “service” as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — making the patient a consumer under the law.
District Forum’s Dismissal Overturned
The State Commission made this observation while hearing an appeal filed by the family of a man who died during post-operative treatment at a Bhavnagar hospital following kidney stone surgery. The District Consumer Forum had earlier dismissed the family’s complaint, stating that since the hospital had provided treatment free of cost, the deceased could not be considered a “consumer.”
Supreme Court Precedent Cited
However, the State Commission quashed that decision and remanded the case back to the District Commission, citing a Supreme Court ruling in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha. The apex court had held that free services offered by hospitals that also charge paying patients still fall within the scope of the Act.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 2013, when the patient underwent kidney stone removal surgery at Akshar Surgical Hospital in Bitad, run by Dr. Ghelani. Although the surgery was reportedly successful, the patient allegedly suffered a cardiac arrest after being administered an antiseptic injection at discharge and later died.
Negligence Alleged by Family
The deceased’s family accused the hospital and the doctor of medical negligence and filed a complaint. The District Forum dismissed it on the grounds that the hospital did not charge any fee. Aggrieved, the family appealed before the State Commission.
Court’s Observation and Ruling
After reviewing the arguments, the State Commission ruled that even when services are rendered free to some patients while others are charged, such services qualify as “service” under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the deceased patient qualified as a “consumer,” and the District Forum’s order was “erroneous and perverse.”
Matter Remanded for Fresh Hearing
The State Commission directed the Bhavnagar District Commission to hear the case afresh and decide on the issue of alleged medical negligence within six months. Both parties have been asked to fully cooperate in the proceedings.
