Judgment : The prayer in this writ petition is as follows: ....to issue a writ at prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, prohibiting the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras the second respondent herein from proceeding with the complaint given by the third respondent herein in O.P.No.50 of 1992 taken on its file and pass. 2. The petitioner, who is a medical practitioner has come before this Court with this writ petition, when the second respondent filed O.P.No.50 of 1992 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. During June, 1988, it seems that the wife of the third respondent Smt.Indira was admitted in the Murari Hospital with labour pain. The Murari Hospital, where the petitioner was working was run by a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Since the wife the third respondent did not deliver till late in the evening (on 16. 1988), the petitioner thought of applying forceps and the child was delivered at 9.50 p.m. by use forceps. It was then found out that the child had its left eye lying outside. It seems that the petitioner immediately dressed the eye and informed the third respondent’s mother in law, that subsequently, the petitioner wanted to have the paediatrician retained with the hospital to examine the child, but the third respondent’s relations who arrived on 16. 1988 were in a hurry to take the child to the Children’s Hospital, Egmore, Madras, that the third respondent through his counsel sent a notice dated 16. 1991 alleging that the injury to the child was due to the negligence of the petitioner and that the child had been operated at the children’s hospital, Egmore, Madras and that the child could not speak or walk after three years and as such a sum of Rs.l,10,000 was demanded. It is further seen that the petitioner has sent a reply on 7. It is further seen that the petitioner has sent a reply on 7. 1991 to the said notice denying the allegations of negligence and wrong handling, that in view of the above situation, the third respondent had filed a complaint in O.P.No.50 of 1992 against the petitioner before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras, claiming a sum of Rs.l,10,000 as damages for the alleged injury caused to his child in Murari Hospital, at the time of delivery and that when the summons was issued in that O.P.No.50 of 1992 to the petitioner, the petitioner has come to this Court with the aforesaid relief. 3.It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition that the third respondent is not the ‘consumer’ as defined by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), that the said complaint (O.P.No.50 of 1992), has been filed more than three years after the date of alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner, that ‘professional service’ is a ‘personal service’ and is exempted from the purview of the Act, that the Act does not define the words ‘personal service’, that its meaning has got to be gathered as ordinarily understood, that Sec.16 of the Act provides for composition of the State Commission, that Sec.16 of the Act does not provide for appointment of persons qualified in medicine, or experts in the medical practice, that the services rendered by a medical practitioner are of a personal nature and are excluded from the purview of the Act, that therefore the second respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the third respondent, that the third respondent did not avail of any services from the petitioner, that therefore the complaint before the second respondent is not maintainable in law, that the above complaint (O.P.No.50 of 1992) has been filed after more than 3 1/2 years from the date of the alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner, that there is no deficiency in the service rendered by the petitioner, that the professional work done by the petitioner is not coming within the purview of the definition of ‘service’ under the Act and that the medical experts has not been included under Sec. 16 of the Act for any adjudication by the consumer forum. 4.Though no counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, the third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that there is no substance in the contention raised by the petitioner that the second respondent commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the disputes. 5. Mr.Krishnappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws my attention to the objects and reasons for passing of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also invites my attention to the definitions of the terms ‘consumer’ and ‘service’ made under Scc.2(d) and (o) of the Act respectively. Under Sec.2(d) the term ‘consumer’ is defined as follows: "Consumer" means any person who- (i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (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 or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person; The term ‘service’ is defined under clause 2(o) of the Act which reads as follows: (O)"Service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing supply of electrical or other energy, board of lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying a news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service." According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, the service of a Doctor comes under the definition of services’ in the Act and the medical profession is not included in the service. Relying in the decision reported in A.S. Mittal v. State of U.R, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1570: (1989)3 S.C.C. 112 , the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that to hold that a Doctor is liable for the damages there must be a misconduct of a negligent nature. According to the learned counsel, the profession of Doctors will not come under the definition (ie) service rendered by the Doctors as per the definition given under Sec.2(l)(c) of the Act and as such the second respondent will have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the third respondent. 6. Mr.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent refers to the various provisions of the Act, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent contends that if the definition of the term ‘consumer’ is read together with the definition of the term ‘service’, it cannot be said that the professional work done by a Doctor will not come within the purview of the definition of the term ‘service’ as defined in the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent relies upon the decision reported in M/s.Cosmopolitan Hospital v. Smt.Vasantha P.Nair, (1992)1 C.P.R. 820 and contends that in the event of any deficiency in the performance of the services rendered by a Doctor, the aggrieved party can invoke the remedies provided under the Act by filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum, having jurisdiction. 7.I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both parties. It is relevant to extract Sec.2 of the Act which gives the clue to the issue: "The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for the purpose, to make provision for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith. It is relevant to extract Sec.2 of the Act which gives the clue to the issue: "The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for the purpose, to make provision for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith. (2) It seeks, inter alia to promote and protect the rights of consumers such as- (a) the right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property; (b) the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices; (c) the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to an authority of goods at competitive prices; (d) the right to be heard and to be assured that consumers’ interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums; (e) the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and (f) right to consumer education. The term deficiency is defined under Sec.2(g) of the Act which reads as follows: “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in inequality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service“. Sec.9 of the Act which provides for the Establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies reads as follows: ”There shall be established for the purposes of this Act, the following agencies, viz. (a) a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to be known as the “District Forum” established by the State Government with the prior approval of the Central Government in each district of the State by notification; (b) a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to be known as the State Commission established by the State Government with the prior approval of the Central Government in the State by notification; and (c) a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission established by the Central Government by notification. “ Sec.l2 of the Act provides for the manner in which a complaint shall be made. “ Sec.l2 of the Act provides for the manner in which a complaint shall be made. Sec. 12 of the Act reads as follows: ”A complaint, in relation to any goods sold or delivered or any service provided, may be filed with a District Forum by (a) the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or such service provided. (b) any recognised consumer association, whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or service provided is a member of such association or not; or (c) the Central or the State Government“. Sec. 13 of the Act prescribes the procedure on receipt of a complaint. Sec.13 of the Act reads as follows: (1) The District Forum shall, on receipt of a complaint if it relates to any goods. ”(a) refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum; (b) Where the opposite party on receipt of a complaint referred to him under Clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute....“ Sec.24 of the Act refers to the finality of orders. Sec.24 of the Act reads as follows: ”Every order of a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission shall if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final. “ In my view, a combined reading of Sub-clauses (1) and (c) of Sec.2 will clearly show that the definition ‘service’ includes the services rendered by a Doctor also. The expression ‘service’ has been defined in Sec.2(l)(c) of the Act as meaning ‘service of any description’. The only two categories of service exempted from the purview of the Act under the said definition are ‘service rendered free of charge’ or under a contract of personal service. The expression ‘service’ has been defined in Sec.2(l)(c) of the Act as meaning ‘service of any description’. The only two categories of service exempted from the purview of the Act under the said definition are ‘service rendered free of charge’ or under a contract of personal service. If the definition of the term ‘service’ is read with the definition of the term ‘consumer’ which occurs in Sec.2(l)(c) of the Act, (extracted above), I have no hesitation to hold that the services rendered by a Doctor is basically professional service and therefore it will be incorrect to call the sophisticated high class professional service as personal service. Further the meaning of the word ‘hire’ is given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary (New VII Edn.) in the following terms: ”employ (person) for wages or fee, procure (from person), grant (out to person), temporary use of (thing), for stipulated payment; borrow (money) girl or man, domestic servant, esp. on farm... “ In the Graies on Statute Law (VII Edn.) it is seen if meaning is plain, consequences to be disregarded, Constitution according to intention is provided as hereunder: ”The cardinal rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is that they should be construed according to the intention expressed in the Act themselves. If the words of the statute are themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their ordinary and natural sense. The words themselves alone do in such a case best declare the intention of the law giver. “The tribunal that has to construe an Act of a legislature, or indeed any other document, has to determine the intention as expressed by the words used. And in order to understand these words it is natural to inquire what is the subject matter with respect to which they are used and the object in view. In 1953 Lord Goddard, C.J., said:” A certain amount of common sense must be applied in construing statutes. The object of the Act has to be considered: “Where the language of an Act is clear and explicit, we must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature”. The object of the Act has to be considered: “Where the language of an Act is clear and explicit, we must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature”. Therefore, the contention of Mr.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent that the second respondent has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint preferred by the third respondent, has to be accepted I do not think that the professional service is a personal service and that the same is exempted from the purview of the Act I have no hesitation to hold that the activity of providing medical assistance for payment carried on by hospitals and members of the medical profession falls within the scope of the expression ‘service’ as defined in Sec.2(l)(c) of the Act and that in the event of any deficiency in the performance of such service, the aggrieved party can invoke the remedies provided under the Act by filing a complaint before the consumer forum having jurisdiction. 8. In view of the above reasoning, I do not think that a writ of prohibition as sought for the petitioner can be issued in this case. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same shall stand dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to raise his objections with regard to the limitation and other factual aspects of the case before the Consumer Forum. No costs.