Medical practitioners' services are 'service' under Consumer Protection Act. Court upholds judgments, rejects constitutional violation claims.

The court held that medical practitioners rendering services to patients, including consultation and treatment, fall within the definition of 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It differentiated between services provided at non-government hospitals/nursing homes, which are covered under the Act, and those at government facilities. Free services are excluded unless some patients are charged. The court found the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies suitable for handling medical service complaints and rejected claims that the Act's provisions violate the Constitution. The judgments regarding medical services were upheld, and certain cases were remitted for review.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Whether a medical practitioner can be regarded as rendering 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Whether the service rendered at a hospital/nursing home can be regarded as 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
3. Whether services rendered free of charge are excluded from the definition of 'service' under the Act.
4. Whether the composition and procedure of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies are suitable for handling complaints regarding medical services.
5. Whether the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as applicable to the medical profession, violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis

1. Medical Practitioner as Rendering 'Service'
The court held that the service rendered to a patient by a medical practitioner, by way of consultation, diagnosis, and treatment, both medicinal and surgical, falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The fact that medical practitioners belong to the medical profession and are subject to the disciplinary control of the Medical Council of India does not exclude the services rendered by them from the ambit of the Act. The court emphasized that the relationship between a doctor and a patient is not a 'contract of personal service' but a 'contract for services,' hence covered under the Act.

2. Service at Hospitals/Nursing Homes
The court distinguished between different categories of hospitals and nursing homes:
- Non-Government Hospitals/Nursing Homes: Services rendered where charges are required to be paid by persons availing such services fall within the purview of 'service' under the Act. Even if some patients are treated free of charge, the service rendered to paying patients is covered.
- Government Hospitals/Health Centres/Dispensaries: Services rendered free of charge to all patients do not fall within the ambit of 'service' under the Act. However, if services are rendered on a payment basis to some patients, it falls within the Act's purview.

3. Services Rendered Free of Charge
The court held that services rendered free of charge by medical practitioners or hospitals/nursing homes where such services are rendered free of charge to everybody would not be 'service' under the Act. However, if the service is rendered free of charge to some patients while charging others, the service would be covered under the Act. The court emphasized that the Act seeks to protect the interests of consumers as a class, and excluding services rendered free of charge would defeat this purpose.

4. Composition and Procedure of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies
The court addressed concerns regarding the suitability of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies for handling complaints related to medical services. It was noted that these agencies are headed by persons well-versed in law and have considerable judicial or legal experience. The court found that the composition of these agencies, which includes members with knowledge and experience in various fields, is adequate to handle consumer disputes, including those involving medical services. The court also noted that complicated cases requiring expert evidence could be directed to civil courts.

5. Constitutionality of the Act's Provisions as Applicable to Medical Profession
The court dismissed the argument that the provisions of the Act, as applicable to the medical profession, violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It held that the composition and procedure of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies do not preclude proper adjudication of consumer disputes arising from complaints related to medical services. The court found no merit in the contention that the Act suffers from arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

Conclusion
The court upheld the judgments of the National Commission that the activity of providing medical assistance for payment carried on by hospitals and members of the medical profession falls within the scope of 'service' under the Act. It dismissed the appeals against these judgments and remitted certain cases for reconsideration in light of this judgment. The court also dismissed the writ petition challenging the applicability and constitutionality of the Act's provisions as related to medical services.

---