Govt employees under ESI scheme are consumers: SC

New Delhi, May 9 (UNI) The Supreme Court has held that government employees who are members of Employees State Insurance (ESI) scheme are consumers within the definition of Consumer Protection Act and government dispensaries and hospitals are liable to pay damages to them for negligence in treatment.

The ruling was handed down by a bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal, P P Naolekar and Talveer Bhandari in a judgement dated May 8 wide with the judgement of National Consumer Commission holding that a person availing medical services in a government hospital is not a consumer as the services are provided free of charge and are gratuitous in nature.

The wife of an appellant Kishore Lal, a railway employee, who was treated at ESI dispensary in Sonepat in 1993 was wrongly diagnosed because of which her condition deteriorated.

She was suffering from diabetes. Later tests conducted at a private hospital revealed that the diagnosis of ESI dispensary was wrong and doctors were not available even at the time of emergency.

Mr Lal filed a complaint in the District Consumer Forum of Sonepat, which was dismissed, holding that the complainant was not a consumer as the services provided by the ESI dispensaries and hospitals were free of charge.

His appeal was also dismissed by the State Consumer Commission, Haryana.

Relying on the judgements of the Supreme Court in Birbal Singh and Indian Medical Association vs V P Shantha, the National Consumer Commission also dismissed his appeal.

The apex court while setting aside the judgement of National Consumer Commission observed, ''On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions of the ESI Act, it is apparent that the corporation is required to maintain and establish the hospitals and dispensaries and to provide medical and surgical services. Service rendered in the hospital to the insured person or his family members for medical treatment is not free in the sense that the expenses incurred for the service rendered in the hospitals would be borne from the contributions made to the insurance scheme by the employer and the employee.'' The court refered the matter back to the District Consumer Disputes redressal forum, Sonepat for decision in accordance with law, laid down therein.

UNI