On 19th September 2021, the Supreme Court observed that the complaint filed by the “KARTA” of a Hindu joint family in respect to the treatment given to her by the hospital when she was pregnant cannot be entertained.
The Division bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian observed that the concept of Hindu joint family does not extend to the treatment of pregnant sister in law.
In this case, the karta of a hindu joint family Jaganarayan filed a consumer complaint regarding the treatment of his pregnant sister in law against a clinic alleging deficiency in service regarding the treatment given to his pregnant sister-in-law Kiran Srivastava.
He stated in the complaint that he availed the services for consideration on behalf of his sister-in-law, being the Karta of Joint Hindu Family. The dismissal of complaint was upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The appellant is the brother-in-law of one Kiran Srivastava, who was four months’ pregnant when she was taken for treatment to the clinic of the respondent on 22 December 2001. It was held that it not necessary to examine the allegations on merits, however, the question required to be examined is as to whether the appellant could file a complaint in respect of deficiency in service on part of the respondent Doctor Girjia Tiwari regarding the treatment given to his sister-in-law Kiran Srivastava.
The argument of the appellant is that his brother is a Constable and, therefore, the appellant had availed the services for consideration on behalf of his sister-in-law, being the Karta of Joint Hindu Family. Therefore, the complaint on his behalf would be maintainable.
Learned counsel Adv Santosh K. Mishra for the appellant relied upon two judgments of this Court reported as (1998- Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. Vs. Harjol Ahluwalia & Anr- Canara Bank Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present appeal. A consumer as mentioned above, means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised and includes a beneficiary of services.
The brother-in-law of a pregnant woman would not be a beneficiary of any services rendered by the respondent. There is no allegation that he has paid or promised any consideration for engaging the services of the respondent Doctor Girija Tiwari. The only assertion in the complaint is that he is the ‘Karta’ of a Joint Hindu Family, therefore, he is entitled to file a complaint on account of the alleged deficiency of service by the respondent. Spring Meadows (supra) was a case of medical negligence in respect of a child. It was the parents of the child, who had filed a consumer complaint, which was found to be maintainable in terms of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Court held as under :-
"In the present case, we are concerned with clause (ii) of Section 2(1)(d ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the said clause a consumer would mean a person who hires or avails of the services and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services. When a young child is taken to a hospital by his parents and the child is treated by the doctor, the parents would come within the definition of consumer having hired the services and the young child would also become a consumer under the inclusive definition being a beneficiary of such services. The definition clause being wide enough to include not only the person who hires the services but also the beneficiary of such services which beneficiary is other than the person who hires the services, the conclusion is irresistible that both the parents of the child as well as the child would be consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such can claim compensation under the Act.”
Further the court said, "The appellant herein is the ‘Karta’ of a Joint Hindu Family. He cannot be said to be availing the services of a medical practitioner in respect of the pregnancy of his sister-in-law. The concept of Joint Hindu Family does not extend to the treatment of a pregnant sister-in-law. It is needless to mention that no objection regarding maintainability of complaint was raised either before the State Commission or the National Commission, but such issue of maintainability of the complaint goes to the root of the case and we have found it to be nonmaintainable on the bare assertions of the complaint alone. We find that the complaint itself was not maintainable and, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs”.
Citation: LL 2021 SC 478
Case name: Jaganarayan Lal Vs Doctor Girija Tiwari
Case no.| Date: CA 2539 OF 2011 | 15 September 2021
Coram: Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian
Counsel: Adv Santosh K. Mishra for appellant, Adv Gaurav Khetarpal for respondent.
