Summary
The Court declined to disturb a Rs.2 lakh consumer award against Safdarjung Hospital given the small amount and the inadequate factual foundation for resolving its jurisdictional objection. It expressly left open whether the hospital fell within the Consumer Protection Act and whether the National Commission could reverse an unchallenged finding in revision using powers analogous to appellate relief. The National Commission’s judgment was confined to the case and barred from citation as precedent; payment was directed within two months.
Issues
- Whether the appeal warranted intervention over the Rs.2 lakh award.
- Whether consumer jurisdiction over Safdarjung Hospital and the Commission’s revisional powers should be conclusively decided.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The distinction between universally free services and mixed paid/free services required an adequate factual foundation; its application to this hospital was left open. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- Under Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, a hospital providing services free to every patient differs from one treating some patients free while charging others. Evidence that this particular patient received free care did not by itself establish the broader factual position; the record and grounds did not permit a conclusive ruling here. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- The Court declined intervention because of the small quantum and confined the National Commission’s decision to the peculiar facts. Whether Safdarjung Hospital came within the Act was expressly left open, and the impugned judgment was not to be cited as precedent. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14)
- The Commission had reversed a maintainability finding favourable to Safdarjung Hospital in another hospital’s revision, although the complainant had not challenged that finding. The Commission did not possess the Supreme Court’s Article 142 jurisdiction; whether it could exercise powers analogous to Order XLI Rule 33 in revision was specifically left open. (¶ 13)
- Payment of Rs.2 lakh to the complainant was required within two months of receipt of a certified copy, extending the time for compliance. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal dismissed subject to express clarifications reserving jurisdictional and revisional-power issues. National Commission judgment confined to the facts and not citable as precedent; Rs.2 lakh payable within two months of receipt of certified copy.