Dismissed

Regional Cancer Center, v. Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Kerala HC4 Mar 2021WP(C)/1998/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged orders directing reimbursement of targeted therapy costs incurred by a scheme member. The court held that since an effective alternate remedy existed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it was improper to adjudicate the matter via writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking to quash the orders of the District and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions was dismissed for lack of maintainability.

Regional Cancer Center, Vs Kerala State Consumer Dispute… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1998 OF 2020(Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

REGIONAL CANCER CENTER, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DR. REKHA A. NAIR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ATHUL SHAJI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PIN-695001

¶11

2 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001

¶12

3 R. BAHULEYAN, KAILAS, CUTCHERY WARD, KOLLAM-13.

¶13

R3 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BABU R1-2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-03-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.1998/2020

: 2 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.1998 of 2020

¶20

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2021

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶23

The petitioner, a fully Government owned Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1956, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exts.P8, P10 and P11.

¶24

The petitioner states that it is an internationally recognised medical centre providing state of the art facilities

¶25

for cancer diagnosis, treatment, palliation and rehabilitation. It is a premier cancer care hospital and research centre in India operating under the National Cancer Control Programme of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The petitioner formulated a number of cancer care schemes for providing free cancer treatment to

¶26

W.P.(C) No.1998/2020

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

the members of the Scheme. The 3^rd respondent joined in “Cancer Care for Life Scheme” along with three of his family members by paying a nominal amount of ₹1,700/-.

¶29

The 3^rd respondent was afflicted with cancer and availed free treatment from the petitioner. Chemotherapy was done on the petitioner free of charge. However, the petitioner had to be subjected to a specialised “Targetted Therapy”. The petitioner paid ₹4,40,466/- as cost of medicine.

¶30

However, subsequently, the 3^rd respondent approached District Consumer Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The District Forum passed Ext.P8 order dated 30.07.2015 directing the petitioner to reimburse a sum of ₹4,40,466/-, being the cost of drugs for Targetted Therapy, which is excluded from the purview of reimbursement. The petitioner preferred Ext.P9 appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, invoking Section 15 of the Consumer

¶31

W.P.(C) No.1998/2020

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

Protection Act, 1986.

¶34

The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as per Ext.P10 judgment dated 09.10.2019. Now, the petitioner has been served with a notice in an execution petition filed by the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order of the CDRF, Ext.P10 order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ext.P11 notice to show-cause issued by the CDRF.

¶35

The contention of the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent is beneficiary of a gratuitous and free service offered by the petitioner under Ext.P1 Scheme. He is not a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the 1^st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for the alleged deficiency of service.

¶36

The petitioner states that Ext.P1 Scheme, in which the 3^rd respondent has joined, only provides for reimbursement of money for cost of drugs of Chemotherapy. Targetted Therapy is not covered under the Scheme. The 3^rd respondent was informed of the same before proceeding with

¶37

W.P.(C) No.1998/2020

¶38

: 5 :

¶39

the treatment. The Scheme only provides gratuitous and free service to its members. Hence, the CDRF ought to have dismissed the claim made by the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent entered appearance and contested the writ petition.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and others [(1995) 6 SCC 651] and argued that service rendered at a Government Hospital/Health Centre/Dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services, is outside the purview of the expression “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned counsel argued that as the CDRF had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent Ext.P8 is nullity and this Court can declare the same as nullity.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the 3^rd respondent had joined the Scheme framed by the petitioner

¶42

W.P.(C) No.1998/2020

¶43

: 6 :

¶44

paying an amount of ₹1,700/-. The Scheme is in the nature of medical insurance, though confined to cancer treatment. The amount paid by the 3^rd respondent constitutes consideration for the service offered by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore cannot now raise technical contentions and argue that what is provided by them is free service.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶46

At the outset, it has to be noted that the orders impugned by the petitioner are passed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner has an effective alternate remedy against Ext.P10 order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act. When such a remedy is available, it will be improper for this Court to adjudicate upon the legality of Exts.P8, P10 and P11.

¶47

The counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the CDRF does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226

¶48

W.P.(C) No.1998/2020

¶49

: 7 :

¶50

of the Constitution of India, can interfere in the matter, in the interest of justice. However, this Court finds that the petitioner did not raise the issue of maintainability of the complaint before the CDRF. Furthermore, the petitioner itself filed Ext.P9 appeal before the State Commission invoking the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and suffered an adverse order. Thereafter, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the CDRF and the State Commission have no jurisdiction and hence this Court should invoke writ jurisdiction.

¶51

In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/02.03.2021

W.P.(C) No.1998/2020

: 8 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶59

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE CANCE PETIT	COPY OF THE PROSPECT R CARE FOR LIFE SCHE IONER DATED NIL.	US ME	OF THE OF THE
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE	COPY OF A MEMBERSHIP	CARD	DATED
	21/01 THE P	/1994 ISSUED TO THE ETITIONER UNDER EXT.P1	SPOU SCHE	SE OF ME.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE	COPY OF THE CONSENT	FORM	DATED
	03/02 RESPO	/2006 SIGNED BY NDENT.	THE	3RD
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE FILED	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT	DAT .	ED NIL
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE DATED PETIT	COPY OF THE WRITTEN 23/07/2009 FILED IONER/OPPOSITE PARTY.	STA BY	TEMENT THE
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE	COPY OF THE AFFIDA	VIT	DATED
	04/07 EXAMI	/2013 IN LIEU NATION OF PW 1.	OF	CHIEF
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE	COPY OF THE AFFIDA	VIT	DATED
	28/05 EXAMI	/2010 IN LIEU NATION OF DW 1.	OF	CHIEF
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE 30/07 DISPU THIRU	COPY OF THE ORD /2015 OF THE DISTRIC TES REDRESSAL VANANTHAPURAM.	ER T CO	DATED NSUMER FORUM,
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE	COPY OF THE APPEAL	MEMO	RANDUM
	DATED PETIT	09/09/2015 FILED IONER/APPELLANT.	BY	THE

¶60

W.P.(C) No.1998/2020

¶61

: 9 :

¶62

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/10/2019 OF THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28/11/2019 IN THE EXECUTION APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶63

Regional Cancer Center, v. Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Regional Cancer Center, v. Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Satheeshkumar Vs the State of Kerala

P.v.Elias Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner

Gireesh Kumar P.G Vs District Disaster Management Authority

Rahul S.Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Baby, Vs Deputy Chief Engineer, Kerala Water Authority

Binoy Abraham Vs the State of Kerala