How the SC of India gave more teeth to Consumer Protection Act?

(Health care services very much their under-CP Act 2019)

 

It was as back as in 1993 when 2^nd amendment in the consumer protection act was in process. A case of real estate Lucknow development authority was going on at argument stage and it was contested by Lucknow Development Authority that immovable property cannot be said to be goods under CP Act) This is how concept of ‘services’ was taking shape. Amendment to the act was brought in the act in June 1993 by adding services also under the act and added housing as service along with number of services. a thoughtful word ‘but not limited to ‘was also added in order to clear that any other services which may develop in the social system can also be considered as services.

Thereafter number of cases came up before the courts and SC defined in each case as to how number of services could be brought under the CP Act stating CP Act is an additional remedy to consumers

Here are some cases through which SC gave more teeth to this welfare act

1.      Legal validity was questioned

Vishwa Bharti House Building Co-operative Societies Versus Karnataka State and others and its legal validity was questioned when a big business man was ordered to be sent to jail for noncompliance of its order. The questions were raised before the Supreme court as to whether Lok Sabha is empowered to pass such an act by which consumer forums run like parallel courts to/against the civil courts with much more discretionary powers. The matter was finally resolved by the Apex court in 2002 and held that the Consumer Protection Act is a valid law passed by the Lok Sabha as per the constitution who was competent to pass such welfare Act.

2.      The registrar of societies to redress the grievance, civil courts barred to interfere in their functioning

In Ms Kalawati V United Vaishya thrift and co-operative society: objections were taken by co-operative societies referring to the clauses in their act which bar the courts to interfere in their functioning, it is the registrar to redress the grievance.  Supreme court rejected their argument stating consumer forums are not courts, hence not barred by their act

3.      Technical points of civil court procedure

New India Insurance Co. Ltd. V Srinivasan decided in 2002 by the Supreme court, it was held that consumer fora’s need not go into technicalities of Civil Procedure Code or Indian evidence act and forums may go by the summery procedure laid down in the act   meaning thereby ample discretionary powers, at times more than civil courts

4.      Medical cases cannot be heard under summary procedure

in 2002 in J.J. Marchant case, Supreme Court made it clear that consumer foras can take evidence, cross examine through affidavits, can appoint local commissioner etc and if matter otherwise falls under their jurisdiction, they must adjudicate the same

5.      Consumer commissions cannot question Statutory functions of statutory body

While dealing with the case filed against statutory bodies it was suggested by the apex court in 1993 in the case of M G Gupta V Lucknow Development Authority that at the same time when ultimate sufferer is public at large funding their salaries and other expenses, statutory bodies are answerable before consumer commissions for their wrongs.

6.      Provident fund commission is a service provider

provident fund commission is a service provider when consideration for making member of PF Account is paid by the respective enterprise and not the member of PF Fund

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V Bhavani (CP) p 563 decided on 22^nd April 2008, Supreme court held -. By becoming a member of the employee’s family pension scheme and contributing to the same, one avails services rendered under section 2(1)(O) by the commission for implementing the scheme, hence is a consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of the act. This is how interest of the consumers are safe guarded under laws of the land.

7.      Electricity supplier is a service provider

Karnataka Power Transmission Vs Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd On 9 February, 2009

‘That supply of electricity to a consumer by KPTC is not sale of electricity. The expression `supply' is not synonym for `sale'. We reiterate what has been stated by this Court in Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. (supra) that supply does not mean sale’

8.      Fixed deposits considered as service taken

Neela Vasant Raje V Amogh industries SC 1993 case was also going on in NC when services were brought under CP Act in 1993 NC while deciding this case held that by depositing money in Fixed deposits considered as service taken from financial institute

 

Controversies over Medical Profession under CP Act

Burning issue of the Day now

The most talked issue remained medical professional since inception of the act in 1986 till new act 2019 which were settled through number of SC judgments. A new turn came after enactment of new act in2019 when the issue was again raised before Kerala HC AND SC Re-affirms its stand on Healthcare service under Consumer law through its judgment in the case of Medicos Legal Action Group v Union of India|SLP (Civil) 19374/2021Decided on 22.4.2022

 

FACTS: An organization "Medicos Legal Action Group”, had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay as Public Interest Litigation No. 58 Of 2021 and prayed before the court to declare that services performed by healthcare service providers are not included within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

·         That parliamentary debates on the Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 preceding the 2019 Act led to exclusion of ‘healthcare’ from the definition of the term “service” as defined in the Bill.

·         That the Hon’ble Minister for Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, had stated on the floor of the Parliament that ‘healthcare’ had been deliberately kept out of the 2019 Act for the reasons cited therefor. This clearly indicates the parliamentary intent of not including ‘health care’ within the definition of “service” in the 2019 Act

SC HELD -

“We are of the clear opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioning Trust, that the Hon’ble Minister having made certain statements in course of parliamentary debates on the Bill that preceded the 2019 Act, such statement is of little relevance. From the pleadings it is found that ‘health care’ was initially included in the definition of the term “service” appearing in the Bill but after extensive debates, the same was deleted. Mere repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2019 Act would not result in exclusion of 'health care' services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of the term 'service'” Held by Supreme Court

NOW we hope this issue in case raised again can be very well taken care by reasoned interpretation by the apex court. However, it is high time now to make appropriate amendment in the act by specifically mentioning the professional services and services provided by the statutory bodies.

Previous

Next