Ms. Rubina was operated in General Hospital Nagpur, which was under control of the Government of Maharashtra, free of charge for family planning i.e. tubectomy. Subsequently, she gave birth to a female child. She filed a

CS Executive · Economic, Business and Commercial Laws · PYQS · June 2021
Ms. Rubina was operated in General Hospital Nagpur, which was under control of the Government of Maharashtra, free of charge for family planning i.e. tubectomy. Subsequently, she gave birth to a female child. She filed a complaint against the State of Maharashtra and the doctor, who performed the operation, claiming ₹ 2 lakh for negligence in performing the operation. Rubina sought the relief of ₹ 2 lakh under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating that the negligence of the doctor and the State of Maharashtra, being the controller of the hospital may be treated as deficiency in the service. Decide, whether Rubina will succeed?

Answer & Explanation:

As per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, Consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose. The term 'service' is defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act as to mean service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. But in the instant case, the tubectomy is rendered free of charge which will not fall within the ambit of the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For the same reason, Rubina is not a consumer as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, Rubina will not succeed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Topics: Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic