Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.C. Mohapatra, J. (President) and J. Patnaik, Member
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: K.N. Jena, Advocate
ORDER
2. Finding of the District Forum that complainant is not a consumer as she has not paid
for the service to be rendered to her, does not appear to be the correct position of law.
Beneficiary of a service rendered for which the person rendering the service is paid for,
is also a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
State Government has paid the doctor (respondent No. 1) to render the service to the
people of Orissa who attend the hospital. Thus, the persons who are attending the
hospital for treatment and advice are the beneficiaries of the service rendered by the
doctor. If the employment of the doctor would have been personal service, the
question might have been different because it is the employer through the agency of
the employee rendering the service. In the present case, however, a doctor appointed
by the State Government stands on a different footing. His employment no doubt is a
4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, while not agreeing with the District Forum that
the complainant is not a consumer because she has not paid for the same, we come to
the conclusion that she is a beneficiary of the services of respondent No. 1 for which
payment is made to him by the State Government to render such service to the
complainant as well as others. It is not free of charges since the State Government has
paid for it. It goes without saying that the funds of the State Government are the funds
of the people of Orissa for which under the Constitution representatives have been
entrusted as trustees to carry on the executive administrative in accordance with the
Constitution. In such a case, it would not come within the scope of service free of
charges. Service rendered by a doctor to a patient is not a personal service.
Accordingly, it also cannot be excluded on that account from the definition of
service. However, on our finding that the view taken by respondent No. 1 cannot
be said to be unreasonable on the materials on record, we agree with the District
Forum that the complaint has no merit.
5. In result, appeal is dismissed. However, as has been observed by the District Forum
we reiterate that conduct of respondent No. 1 requires scrutiny by the authorities so
that the popular Government of the State is not ill-reputed for the high-handed action
of some officers who feel impugned to treat the people of the State in a manner which
is not envisaged under our Constitution.