Court recognizes parents and child as consumers under Consumer Protection Act, 1986; awards compensation for injury and mental agony.

The court affirmed that both the parents and the minor child are considered "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It held that compensation can be awarded to both the child for injury and ongoing care costs and the parents for their mental agony and caregiving responsibilities. The court upheld the Commission's decision to award Rs. 12.5 lakhs to the child and Rs. 5 lakhs to the parents, dismissing the argument that the hospital's post-incident actions could lessen the parents' mental suffering. Both appeals were dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Definition of "Consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Entitlement of parents to claim compensation for mental agony under the Consumer Protection Act.
3. Award of compensation to both the minor child and the parents.

Summary:

Issue 1: Definition of "Consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The court examined whether the parents of a minor child, who was admitted to a hospital for treatment, can be considered "consumers" u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court concluded that both the parents and the child are consumers. The parents hired the services of the hospital, and the child, being a beneficiary of those services, also qualifies as a consumer. The definition of "consumer" is broad enough to include both the person who hires the services and the beneficiary of such services.

Issue 2: Entitlement of parents to claim compensation for mental agony under the Consumer Protection Act
The court addressed whether the Commission is entitled to award compensation to the parents for mental agony u/s 14 of the Act. The court held that the Commission can award compensation to both the minor child and the parents. The minor child is compensated for the injury and the recurring expenses required for his vegetative state, while the parents are compensated for their acute mental agony and the lifelong care they must provide. The court found no infirmity in awarding compensation to both the child and the parents under different heads.

Issue 3: Award of compensation to both the minor child and the parents
The court considered whether compensation can be awarded to both the minor child and the parents or only to the beneficiary of the services rendered. The court affirmed that both the minor child and the parents are entitled to compensation. The minor child, as the direct beneficiary of the hospital services, and the parents, for the mental agony and lifelong care responsibilities, are both recognized as consumers and thus eligible for compensation.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the court upheld the Commission's decision to award Rs. 12.5 lakhs to the minor child and Rs. 5 lakhs to the parents for mental agony. The court also dismissed the contention that the hospital's humanitarian approach post-incident could mitigate the parents' mental agony. Both appeals were dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000.

---