ESI medical care is a consumer service; consumer forum jurisdiction survives for negligence claims absent express statutory bar.

Medical treatment provided by an ESI hospital or dispensary is not gratuitous where it is financed through a compulsory insurance scheme funded by employer and employee contributions, so it falls within "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A claim for damages based on alleged medical negligence is not a dispute confined to statutory benefits or contribution matters under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and Sections 74 and 75 do not expressly oust consumer jurisdiction. The consumer forum therefore remains competent to entertain the complaint, and the dispute must be adjudicated under consumer law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether medical services rendered by an ESI hospital or dispensary are gratuitous and therefore excluded from the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; (ii) whether Section 74 read with Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ousts the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in a claim for damages alleging medical negligence.

Issue (i): Whether medical services rendered by an ESI hospital or dispensary are gratuitous and therefore excluded from the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Analysis: The definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) and "service" under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 covers services hired or availed for consideration, including medical services where the charges are borne by an insurer or under an insurance scheme. The ESI scheme is a compulsory insurance arrangement funded by employer and employee contributions, and the medical facilities provided under it are not rendered free of charge in the legal sense. The service falls within the principle applied to insurance-funded medical treatment and is distinct from wholly free public medical services.

Conclusion: The medical service provided by the ESI hospital or dispensary is "service" within Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is not gratuitous.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 74 read with Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ousts the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in a claim for damages alleging medical negligence.

Analysis: Sections 74 and 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 confer jurisdiction on the Employees' Insurance Court over disputes concerning statutory benefits, contribution-related matters, and other matters expressly covered by that provision. A claim for compensation for medical negligence is not a claim for statutory benefit under the ESI Act and does not fall within the enumerated disputes under Section 75. Since there is no express bar excluding consumer fora, and consumer jurisdiction is to be construed broadly, the consumer forum is not deprived of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction of the consumer forum is not ousted by Section 74 or Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to invoke the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the dispute was required to be decided by the consumer forum, with the matter sent back for adjudication according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Medical treatment financed through a statutory insurance scheme is not free service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and a claim for damages for medical negligence is outside the exclusive ambit of the Employees' Insurance Court under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 unless an express statutory bar excludes consumer jurisdiction.

---