ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. Petitioner before us an Army Officer (retired), is aggrieved by the order of
the Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission dismissing his appeal and
upholding the order of the District Forum. Complaint of the petitioner was for alleged
deficiency in service on account of medical negligence in the treatment of his wife who
suffered from burn injuries and was getting treatment in the military hospital where she died.
There are as many as 10 opposite parties-respondents. Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 would
appear to be doctor, all Army Officers. District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that
the petitioner was not a consumer and the military hospital where the deceased wife of the
petitioner got treatment rendering service free of charge and it would not mean service
within the meaning of Clause (o) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Admittedly no consideration was paid by the petitioner or his deceased wife for the
treatment rendered to the petitioner’s deceased wife in the military hospital. It is also
admitted that doctors attending on her did not charge any fee. In fact, no consideration
passed. Mr. Mahesh Kasana, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the earlier order of
this Commission remanding the case to the District Forum. He says that finding of the
District Forum and State Commission would be contrary to what the National Commission
had said earlier and that would also amount to reviewing of its own order. We do not think
such an argument has any basis. Supreme Court in the case of Indian Medical Association
v. V.P. Santha and Ors. [III91995) CPJ 1 (SC)] decided on 13th November, 1995, had clearly
laid down the principles for proceeding in the case of medical negligence defining explicitly
what would be service within the meaning of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in
this petition. This revision petition is dismissed.