Consumer protection act,1986

Guest (Querist) 08 November 2011 This query is : Resolved
my query is that when a government hospital which charges no fee or we can say renders its services for free to the patients in govt. hospital and if they find any deficiency in service then why they cannot sue under consumer protection act, 1986. why the statutes say so that service charged free of cost would not arise a claim for patient under consumer law

plzzzz help... soon

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 08 November 2011
You can challenge any Act only before High Court or Supreme Court so exhaust this opportunity there.

The aim and object of this Act is to ensure compensation for a consumer who pays and do not get service/commodity accordingly so the situation in both matters is entirely different. Govt. hospitals are also not meant for such deficiencies but remedy do not lie under Consumer Disputes Act but under Civil Procedure Code.

Shonee Kapoor (Expert) 09 November 2011
Agreed with Ld. Mr. Makkad.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

mahendrakumar (Expert) 09 November 2011
rightly advised by Mr.Makkad.

as per the consumer protection act,one can get remedy only if there is any defeciency for any service for which he or she has PAID

as such not only govt hospital any other service we get from the govt for free are not covered by this act.

Shailesh Kr. Shah (Expert) 09 November 2011
Yes,righlty guided by Shri Makkad.

prabhakar singh (Expert) 09 November 2011
Your agitation and anxiety is right and deserves to be voted that since a state is under duty to take care of person and property of its citizens and that naturally includes health also then health services of state free or paid must be brought actionable within ambit of the COPRA.This could be possible only by public demand from the legislatures or by suggestions coming in APEX COURT JUDGMENTS OR BY INTELLECTUAL WRITES UP IN DAILY OR BY REPORTS OF LAW COMMISSION OR WHEN THE EXECUTIVE REALIZES ON ITS OWN THAT IT IS WRONG ON ITS PART TO SAVE ITS SKIN IN
SUCH A FASHION.

@mr.Makkad!
So challenging the Act in any court can not serve any purpose because the author does not want the Act scraped; rather he wants that even gratuitous service,if advanced by the state,who is duty bound to advance the same under directive principals of our constitution, once given must not be defective in quality [an individual can not be under duty to render a free service as his activities are regulated by contracts] solely on this count that it was rendered free.In my opinion it is not equitable to think that even a state should enjoy defence of gratuitous service.

Hope everybody here will instead of getting offended shall give a re look to the matter for advancing views in pros and cons.