—Order— This complaint was filed on February 17, 1989 under s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (No. 68 of 1986) (for short "the Act" herein) against Dr. C. S. Sharma (opposite party No.1) and Superintendent, S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur (opposite-party No. 2) praying that a sum of Rs. 6,95,000/- may be awarded as compensation from Hospital authorities/Dr. C. S. Sharma. The facts as disclosed in the complaint are that the complainant met with a motorcycle accident and so got himself admitted at 11.00 a.m. on 17.11.88 in N.W. I. Ward, the Unit Incharge of which was opposite-party No. 1. There was doctors strike during those days and as such doctors who were present there did not look after him. As for four continuous days nobody looked after him and did not give any advice and further as there was foul smell from his leg, the complainant thought it better to consult some other doctor at Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital Jaipur as there was no doctors strike. This he so decided after having talks with the Unit Incharge. He consulted Dr. Naresh Prakash on 21.11.88. Dr. Naresh Prakash decided to impute the leg as the matter was serious. On 22.11.88 the complainants right leg was imputed. The complainant has averred that had the doctors of S.M.S. Hospital properly looked after him and gave proper advice and treatment, there would have been no amputation of his leg. It was on account of the carelessness of the doctors of S.M.S. Hospital that there was gangrene on account of which he has to lose his leg. According to him the matter is covered by the Act, for, the doctors are paid from public exchequer. The complainant is a citizen, and if not directly atleast indirectly, he has contributed payment to the public exchequer. He has stated that he is a consumer within the meaning of s. 2(l)(d) of the Act. The details of the compensation have been given in paras marked 1 to 4 of the complaint. Alongwith the complaint, he has filed prescription and Follow Up Card of Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital. 2. The complaint was registered and the notices were issued to the opposite parties. The version of the case was filed on behalf of opposite-party No. 2 on 10.4.89. It resisted the complaint. Alongwith the complaint, he has filed prescription and Follow Up Card of Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital. 2. The complaint was registered and the notices were issued to the opposite parties. The version of the case was filed on behalf of opposite-party No. 2 on 10.4.89. It resisted the complaint. It was submitted that the complainant is not a "consumer" as defined in the Act and the opposite-party No. 2 does not render any "service" as envisaged by s. 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Act. The objection was also taken that the complainant has raised many disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated upon by the Commission, for a regular trial by a competent forum is required. The plea in this regard is that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate such a complaint. Further that the complainant has no locus standi to invoke the provisions of the Act for the protection of his civil rights. It was submitted in the reply that the complaint has not been filed bonafide and the object of the complainant is merely to harass the State authorities for his oblique motives. While denying the facts stated in the complaint, it was submitted that the complainant met with an accident on 8-11-88 and got himself treated locally at Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu, that the complainant had compound fracture on his right leg with gangrene and computed syndrome, that he came to S.M.S. Hospital on 18.11.88 and as per chit of opposite-party No. 1, was admitted as indoor patient on that day, that he was given regular treatment upto 21.11.88, that on that date he left the hospital against the medical advice at 4.45 p.m., that the wife of the complainant had mentioned in writing on the admission ticket that she was taking her husband against doctors advice and did not want to get him treated there in the hospital. Opposite-party No. 2 has further stated that after the receipt of the complaint from the State Commission, the matter was re-examined on the basis of the record by a Committee of three senior doctors:—(1) Dr. M. Upadhyaya, Prof. & Head of Department of Orthopaedic, (2), Dr. U.S. Mathur, Associate Prof, in Medicine and (3), Dr. G. Sen, Prof. & Head C.T. Surgery of the Medical College and Hospital Jaipur. The Committee gave report after examining the record. M. Upadhyaya, Prof. & Head of Department of Orthopaedic, (2), Dr. U.S. Mathur, Associate Prof, in Medicine and (3), Dr. G. Sen, Prof. & Head C.T. Surgery of the Medical College and Hospital Jaipur. The Committee gave report after examining the record. It was denied that the doctors neither attended to the patient nor gave proper attention to him. Support was taken in this connection from the acts of omissions and commissions of the complainant as he never made any complaint in this regard to any of the hospital authorities or to any higher authorities before leaving the hospital. In support of the pleas indoor patient bed head ticket, chit of Dr. C. S. Sharma,prescriptions and the report of three doctors dated March 15,1989 were submitted. The details of the treatment are contained in these documents. 3. Opposite-party No. 1 filed its version of the case on 12.4.89 incorporating more or less the same pleas which were taken by opposite-party No. 2. It was stated by him that he has gone through the record of the hospital pertaining to the complainant and according to him the treatment given to the complainant was proper and adequate and that there was no question of negligence or fault of the doctors as is revealed from the report of three doctors dated 15.3.89. 4. On 5.5.89 the complainant has filed his affidavit after the version of the case of the opposite-parties. We consider it proper to reproduce paras 2, 3 & 4 of the affidavit. ^^2- ;g fd eSus Mk- lh-,l- kekZ] fpfdRld] lokbZ ekuflag fpfdRlky;] t;iqj ls fnukad 17-11-88 dks 100@& :i;s kqYd nsdj viuh nk;ha <kax ftldk fd ,DlhMsUV ds dkj.k ÝSDpj gks x;k Fkk] fn[kk;k FkkA ^^3- ;g gS fd Mk- lh-,l- kekZ us eq> ls Qhl olwy dj esjk esfMdy ijh{k.k dj eq>s lokbZ ekuflag fpfdRlky; esa HkrhZ fd;s tkus gsrq eq>s ,d fpV fy[kdj jSQj fd;k FkkA ^^4- ;g gS fd esjk bykt Mk- lh-,l- kekZ o muds vf/kuLFk dk;Z dj jgs fpfdRldksa o deZpkfj;ksa }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk fdUrq mudh ykijokgh o vuqfpr fpfdRlk ds dkj.k esjh Vkax esa fo"k QSy tkus ls dkVuk iM+kA Counter was filed to this affidavit by opposite-party No. 1 on 30.5.89. While denying the allegations made in the affidavit as stated by the complainant, it was admitted by opposite-party No. 1 that the complainant came to his residence for check up and he charged his usual prescribed fee of Rs. 35/-, that after examining him thoroughly and after proper diagnosis he advised him accordingly. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite-parties submitted on May 30, 1989, that arguments on the question regarding maintainability of the complaint before the State Commission under the Act may be heard first as ordered on 5-5-89. 6. We have heard Mr. Rajendra Sharma, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. Ashok Parihar, Advocate for the opposite-parties on the preliminary question regarding maintainability of the complaint before the State Commission under the Act. 7. Mr. Ashok Parihar, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant is not a "consumer" as defined under the Act and that opposite-party No. 2 does not render any "service" contemplated under the Act. His main objection is that the complaint as filed by the complainant cannot be entertained, tried and adjudicated by the State Commission under the Act. Mr. Rajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant, has stoutly opposed the objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that having regard to the definition of "service", the complaint is maintainable as the "service" rendered by the doctors employed in the State Hospital (in this case S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur) in connection with the treatment, operation etc. suffered from the "deficiency" within the meaning of s. 2(l)(g) of the Act. According to him the service rendered by doctors of opposite-party No. 2 were hired services. It was submitted that the services rendered by the doctors of S. M. S. Hospital even though they may not strictly be hired services for consideration still they are paid salary from the public exchequer to which the complainant contributes. These services being available for treatment, operation etc. for all purposes are hired services. 8. We have bestowed our most careful and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties. First and the foremost question that arises for our consideration is whether the complainant is a "consumer" within the meaning of the Act. Before we do that it will be proper to examine relevant definitions of the various terms given in the Act. S. 2(l)(b) of the Act defines "complainant". First and the foremost question that arises for our consideration is whether the complainant is a "consumer" within the meaning of the Act. Before we do that it will be proper to examine relevant definitions of the various terms given in the Act. S. 2(l)(b) of the Act defines "complainant". For our purpose the material definition is : "(b) "complainant means— (i) a consumer; or (ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) the Central Government or any other State Government, who or which makes a complaint;" "Complaint" has been defined in s. 2(l)(c) of the Act, which is as under :— "(c) "complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that— (i) as a result of any unfair trade practice adopted by any trader, the complainant has suffered loss or damage; (ii) the goods mentioned in the complaint suffer from one or I more defects; (iii) the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods, with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act;" "Consumer" has been defined in s. 2(l)(d) of the Act. For our purpose it is as follows :— "(d) "consumer" means any person who;— (i)................................ (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person." 9. It was put to Shri Rajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant as to how this complaint can be entertained by the State Commission in view of the definition of "consumer" mentioned in s. 2(l)(d) of the Act as the complainant has not hired any service for consideration for treatment, operation etc., from the doctors of opposite-party No. 2. It was put to Shri Rajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant as to how this complaint can be entertained by the State Commission in view of the definition of "consumer" mentioned in s. 2(l)(d) of the Act as the complainant has not hired any service for consideration for treatment, operation etc., from the doctors of opposite-party No. 2. S. 2(l)(o) of the Act defines "service" as under :— "(o) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provisions of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment amusement or the purveying (sic) of news or other information. But does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service." 10. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently urged that the complainant has suffered a lot on account of the indifference, negligence and carelessness of the doctors of the N.W.I. Ward where he was admitted on 18-11-88. S. 14 of the Act deals with the findings of the District Forum. S. 18 of the Act provides for procedure applicable to State Commissions. S. 14 inter alia, provides that order for payment of compensation to the consumer for the loss or injury suffered by him can also be passed. 11. A perusal of S. 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Act abundantly makes clear that a person claiming himself as a "consumer" should satisfy amongst others, three conditions, namely, (i). the service should have been rendered to him, (ii) the service should be hired by him, and (iii) for hiring the service, he should have paid consideration in the manner contemplated by s. 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Act. The definition of "service" has already been quoted hereinabove. It is an inclusive definition and illustrations of the various services which are available to potential users have been given. "Hire" has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as "employ person for wages or fee". In Collins English Dictionary, "hire" has been defined as "to acquire the temporary use of a thing or services of a person in exchange for payment" or "to provide something or the service of oneself or others for an agreed payment usually for an agreed period." 12. Consideration means payment for a service, recompense fee. 13. In Collins English Dictionary, "hire" has been defined as "to acquire the temporary use of a thing or services of a person in exchange for payment" or "to provide something or the service of oneself or others for an agreed payment usually for an agreed period." 12. Consideration means payment for a service, recompense fee. 13. In the complaint which was filed on 17-2-89, the complainant has stated nothing about the payment of consideration (fee, charges) to opposite-party No. 1 Dr. C. S. Sharma Unit Incharge N. W. I Ward in S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur. He has merely stated as under :— ^^;g ekeyk eSa miHkksäk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 1986 ds rgr ekuuh; v/;{k egksn; ds fopkjkFkZ izLrqr dj jgk gwW D;ksafd ;s lsokvksa ls lEcfU/kr ekeyk gS ftlds fy, MkDVlZ dks yksd dks"k ¼tks fd turk ds }kjk fn;s x;s VSDl ls curk gS½ rFkk eSa Hkh ,d ukxfjd gwW] vr% izR;{k :i ls u lgh ysfdu ijks{k :i ls yksd dks"k esa dj bR;kfn tek djkus esa eSa Hkh Hkkxhnkj gwWA vr% ijks{k :i ls lsokvksa dk Hkqxrku esjs }kjk fd;k x;k gSA ;gh ugha] bl ekeys esa izfrQy dk Hkqxrku djds lsokvksa dks okLro esa HkkM+s ij ysus okys O;fä ls fHkUu ,slk ykHk Hkksxh Hkh kkfey gS] tks okLro esa HkkM+s ij ysus okys O;fä ds vuqeksnu ls ,slh lsokvksa dk mi;ksx djrk gSA vr% ukxfjd gksus ds ukrs ls lsok;sa eSus ljdkj ds vuqeksnu ls izkIr dh gSA 14. Opposite-party No. 2 has filed the version of the case alongwith the documents on 10-4-89. Opposite-party No. 1 has filed version of the case on 12-4-89. It is thereafter that the complainant has filed affidavit that he went to opposite-party No. 1 and paid Rs. 100/- as his fees and that opposite-party No. 1 after receiving the fee from him, medically examined him and gave a chit and referred his case for admitting him in S.M.S. Hospital. Thereafter opposite-party No. 1 filed the counter affidavit controverting the facts stated therein and stated that the patient (complainant) came to his residence for check up and he charged his usual prescribed fee of Rs. 35/-. He examined him thoroughly and after proper diagnosis advised him accordingly. Thereafter opposite-party No. 1 filed the counter affidavit controverting the facts stated therein and stated that the patient (complainant) came to his residence for check up and he charged his usual prescribed fee of Rs. 35/-. He examined him thoroughly and after proper diagnosis advised him accordingly. In this background, the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant is that he has hired the services of opposite-party No. 1 for consideration and as such the complainant is a "consumer" within the meaning of the Act and is entitled to maintain the complaint. Here we may advert to the allegations made in the complaint. To quote the complainant : ^^esjh eksVj lkbZfdy ls nq?kZVuk gksus ds dkj.k eSa 17 uoEcj] 1988 dks lokbZ ekuflag vLirky esa lqcg 11 cts ,u-MCY;w- 1 okMZ esa HkrhZ gqvkA MkDVjksa dh gM+rky Fkh rFkk tks MkDVj ogka mifLFkr Fks mUgksaus Hkh esjs izfr mis{kk cjrhA pkj fnu ogka jgus ds ckn pwafd dksbZ ns[kHkky ugha dj jgk Fkk rFkk u gh fdlh rjg dh dksbZ lykg ew>s nh tk jgh Fkh rFkk iSj Hkh cqjh rjg ls cncw ekj jgk Fkk vr% ogka ds ;wfuV bapktZ ls ckrsa djus ds ckn esa ;g mfpr le>k fd nqyZHkth vLirky esa fn[kk;k tk;s D;ksafd ogka dksbZ gM+rky ugha FkhA According to him the doctors were on strike and the doctors who were available there did not attend him properly and treated him indifferently, that he remained there for four days and he was not properly looked after that no advice was given to him and that as his leg was giving foul smell, he thought it proper to get himself admitted in Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital after having discussed the matter with the Unit Incharge. 15. Opposite-party No. 1, in his affidavit, has stated that he examined the patient on 18-11-88 at his residence and after thorough examination and diagnosis he referred the complainant to Dr. Choudhary, Orthopaedics on duty in the accident and emergency services, S.M.S. Hospital for follow up treatment. As per chit he was admitted in the hospital on the same day but the complainant had already developed gangrene with foul smell when he came to opposite-party No. 1 on 18-11-88. Choudhary, Orthopaedics on duty in the accident and emergency services, S.M.S. Hospital for follow up treatment. As per chit he was admitted in the hospital on the same day but the complainant had already developed gangrene with foul smell when he came to opposite-party No. 1 on 18-11-88. The process was irreversible and the limb has to be imputed in such circumstances and that he was given proper treatment and there was no negligence and carelessness in diagnosis or treatment on his part or on the part of the hospital. The services which he availed of from the doctors of the Unit or for that matter from opposite-party No. 1, were not hired services for consideration for his treatment. Whether he paid Rs. 100/- to opposite party No. 1 at his residence or Rs. 35/- were received by opposite-party No. 1 as prescribed fee all this was merely for check up/consultation/advice. This has no bearing whatsoever in regard either to the admission in the hospital or for treatment there is even according to the complainant the doctors who were available in the Unit did not attend properly. No fee or charges were paid to the Hospital authorities for admission and treatment. In S.M.S. Hospital no amount is paid by the patient for his admission and treatment. The services rendered by the doctors in the hospitals run by the State Government are free service and no consideration whatsoever is. paid. "Service" as defined in s. 2 (l)(o) does not include any service free of charge or under any contract of personal service. The services admittedly were not hired for consideration by the complainant. It is true that the doctors are paid salary from the public exchequer and the government employs them on payment of salary. The Government while running the hospitals gives free medical services to its citizens and for availing of their services it pays the salary to the doctors. In these circumstances, the complainant as a citizen of the State is entitled to free medical services from the hospitals run by the government, but he cannot be said to have hired the services for consideration. We are, therefore, of opinion that the complainant is not a "consumer" within the meaning of s. 2(l)(d) of the Act inasmuch as the three conditions necessary for a person to be a consumer under the Act are not satisfied. We are, therefore, of opinion that the complainant is not a "consumer" within the meaning of s. 2(l)(d) of the Act inasmuch as the three conditions necessary for a person to be a consumer under the Act are not satisfied. In our considered opinion, the complainant has not hired any services for consideration for his treatment in S.M.S. Hospital either from the hospital authorities or opposite-party No. 1 and, therefore, cannot be considered as a "consumer". 16. In these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that this complaint is not maintainable under the Act. It is, consequently, rejected as not maintainable. 17. An afterword : This order will, however, not preclude the complainant from seeking relief/reliefs by resorting to appropriate proceedings before any other forum/court/authority, if it is permissible in law. 18. Order Pronounced on June 20, 1989.