The National Commission had earlier awarded Rs 12.5 lakh as compensation to Harjot and a separate compensation of Rs 5 lakh to his parents. And last month, the Supreme Court (SC) upheld the Commissions verdict.
The SCs judgement has been hailed as path-breaking on another count. The ruling has been described as a welcome expansion of the term consumer enshrined in the Consumer Protection Act. By enlarging the scope of the term to include the parents of the victim, the court has addressed consumer grievances comprehensively. The court held that if the parents of the child having hired the services of the hospital were consumers within Section 2(1) (d) of the Act, the child too was a consumer being a beneficiary of such services in the inclusive definition of the term consumer. Doctors and other service providers are unhappy, but the proposal is not unique redressal agencies have interpreted the law in the same manner. The SC has only confirmed the law as it has existed since 1986.
It is not always that you buy goods yourself a washing machine, microwave oven, scooter or a saree may be bought by your wife, daughter or son. Similarly the services of a doctor, share broker or dry cleaner may be hired by any member of the family. Can you take action if goods are found to be defective or services not up to the mark? A complaint can be lodged with the court but can the complaint be filed persons other than the one who bought the goods or hired the services?
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines a consumer as any person who buys goods or hires services for a consideration and includes any user of these goods or services. Despite this clear provision by which the beneficiary of the goods and services is a consumer, objections are often raised in courts that the person complaining is not a consumer.
Twenty-six-year-old Manju Tiwari was six-weeks pregnant when she went to Dr Viraj Sharma Jaiswal in Mayo Hospital, Bhopal to determine the sex of the foetus. Dr Jaiswal took a corean biopsy sample and charged her Rs 1,200. The sample was to be sent to the Yash Laboratory in Indore for testing. The sample, however, reached the lab late and was found unfit for testing. Dr Jaiswal took another sample, but again the sample reached the lab four days late and could not be tested.
Manjus husband Sunil Tiwari filed a complaint with the District Forum in Bhopal, which directed the Hospital to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation along with costs, refund of charges and interest for the deficiency in service. Mayo Hospital appealed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that Sunil was not the consumer of their services and the real consumer, Manju, had not filed the complaint. The Madhya Pradesh State Commission, however, rejected this objection by observing that so far as the argument that Sunil Tiwari was not their consumer, it is clarified that according to the definition of the word consumer it includes any beneficiary of such services other than the one who hires or avails of services for consideration.
In another case, Mangesh Manohar Telrandhe of Nagpur bought a 5-litre capacity pressure cooker manufactured by TT Pvt Ltd, with a 10-year guarantee, in 1986. Telrandhes wife Meenal was seriously injured in 1989 when the cooker exploded; her right hand was damaged and she suffered permanent disability.
The question before the National Commission was whether the husband could litigate on behalf of his wife. The commission held that the relationship of husband and wife, in marriage, is such that the commonality of interest and interdependence of each other entitles either party to step into the shoes of another when the complaint relates to defective goods used both by the husband and wife... The husband is certainly a consumer as purchaser of defective goods for consideration and is entitled to claim the loss suffered by him in incurring expenditure for the treatment of his wife. The permanent disability suffered by the wife also gives a cause of action to the husband.
Finally, and most comprehensively, the S C has reiterated the law in Harjot Ahluwalias case, with its ruling that, In an action by any such member of the family for any deficiency of service, it will not be open to the trader to take a stand that there is no privity of contract. The Court added that the Act being a beneficial legislation intended to confer speedier remedy to the consumers from being exploited by unscrupulous traders, the provisions should receive a liberal construction.
The ruling of the apex court will go a long way in putting an end to the tendency of opposite parties in consumer disputes of raising hyper-technical objections to delay and thwart the justice to be provided to consumers.