JAGDISH KUMAR BAJPAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE limited question in this revision is - whether the Petitioner, a pensioner and beneficiary of the Central Government Health Scheme (C.G.H.S.), would be a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (C.P. Act) for the alleged deficiency in service by the C.G.H.S. Medical Officer? Complaint No.852 of 1997 filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the District Forum, Kanpur City, vide order 9.6.2000, solely on the preliminary objection raised by the Union of India that the Complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That judgment and order was confirmed by the State Commission, in Appeal No. 84 of 2000 dated 18.10.2001, by relying on the judgment and order dated 9.2.1996 passed by the National Commission in the case of Additional Director, C.G.H.S. Pune Vs. Dr. R.L. Bhutani, Revision Petition No. 219 of 1995. Hence, this revision petition. When the matter came up for hearing before the Bench of this Commission, it was referred to a larger Bench in view of the conflicting decisions rendered by this Commission, and also in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 651.

(2.) AT the outset it is to be stated that the point would not require much discussion in view of the recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in Laxman Thamppa Kotgiri Vs. G.M., Central Railway and Ors. (2005) 1 SCALE 600. In the said case, a complaint was filed on the ground that the Complainant's wife had been negligently treated in B.R. Ambedkar's Hospital of the Central Railway, as a result of which she died. The State Commission, in view of V.P. Shantha's case held that as no charges were taken, service rendered at the Railway Hospital would not come within the definition of paid service for the purpose of C.P. Act. That was upheld by this Commission. Reversing the said judgment of this Commission, the Apex Court observed that since it was not in dispute that medical treatment given in the hospital to the employees and his family members was part of the conditions of service and that the hospital was being run and subsidised by the Appellant's employers, namely, the Union of India, the case would fall within the parameters laid down in para 55(12) of the judgment in V.P.Shantha's case. The Court also considered the decision in State of Orissa Vs. Divisional Manager, L.I.C. and Ors., (1996) 8 SCC 655 and observed that V.P. Shantha's case was decided by a larger bench and was binding. In para 55(12) of V.P.Shantha's case law laid down is as under:

(3.) SUMMING up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon."