Govt workers under ESI scheme are consumers: SC

New Delhi, May 10: 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 given by a Bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal, P P Naolekar and Talveer Bhandari in a judgement on May 8 along with the judgement of National Consumer Commission holding that a person availing of medical services in a government hospital is not a consumer as the services are provided free of charge.

The wife of an appellant Kishore Lal, a railway employee, who was treated at an 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 the 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 ESI dispensaries and hospitals were gratuitous in nature.

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 to provide medical and surgical services. Medical service rendered in a hospital to an insured person or his family members is not free in the sense that the expenses incurred for services rendered in the hospital would be borne from the contributions made to the insurance scheme by the employer and the employee.'' The court referred the matter back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, for decision in accordance with law, laid down therein.

UNI