Medical Beneficiaries Of Railway Hospital Fall Within Definition of 'Consumer': Delhi State Commission Remands Matter Back To District Commission

Brief Facts:

The Complainant, a lifetime beneficiary of Northern Railway Central Hospital's medical services, faced issues such as restricted OPD timings, a 'coupon system' at OPD counters, and a lack of caregiver facilities. The Complainant argued that he paid the requisite amount to the hospital for medical facilities upon retirement and holds a medical card and UMID card issued by the hospital. Despite the Complainant's efforts to address the issue through letters, no action was taken by the hospital. Consequently, many individuals, including the Complainant, resorted to costly private medical care despite having railway medical cover. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-X, New Delhi (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the hospital.

The District Commission held that the Complainant does not meet the criteria under Sec. 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, as the hospital was not considered a service provider to the Complainant, nor had the Complainant availed any service from the hospital for consideration. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.

In response to the District Commission's decision, the Complainant filed an appeal in the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“State Commission”) and argued that possessing a Medical Card issued by paying a certain amount and contributing towards medical allowance qualifies him as a bona fide consumer.

Observations by the State Commission:

The State Commission referred to the fundamental purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is to safeguard the interests of consumers who often find themselves adversely affected by the actions of service providers. It noted that the Act aims to address situations where service providers entice consumers with appealing offers but fail to deliver the promised services when needed.

Under the Act, a consumer is defined as any individual who purchases goods or avails services for consideration, excluding those acquired for resale or commercial purposes. Deficiency in service is also clearly outlined as any fault or inadequacy in the quality, nature, or manner of performance of a service, as required by law or contract.

The State Commission noted that the Complainant possessed a Medical Card obtained after paying a specific amount and contributing monthly instalments towards medical allowance for two decades. It noted that the Complainant alleged deficiency on the part of the hospital and argued that despite fulfilling financial obligations, he was unable to avail himself of the medical services.

The State Commission held that the Complainant falls within the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, of 2019. It found no compelling evidence presented by the hospital to refute the Complainant's status as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Consequently, the State Commission overturned the District Commission's decision and directed the District Commission to deal with the case on merits. The appeal was allowed.

Case Title: Mohan Krishna Anand vs Northern Railway

Case Number: First Appeal No. 106/2022

Date of Decision: 31.05.2024