Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Complainant [sec. 2(b)] means The person who can make a complaint before a Consumer Redressal Forum may be: i. ii. iii. iv. v. a consumer, or any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force, or the Central or State Government, or one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, or In case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative.

Consumer [sec. 2(d)] 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 and does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, or hires or avails of 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 or avails of such services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such services are availed of with the approval of the first said person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.

ii.

commercial purpose does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

Case 1 Sobhag Mal Meena vs. Western India Mototrs The next important term to consider is what do you mean by commercial purpose. The NationalCommission in Western India State Motors V/s. Sobhag Mal held that, the plying of a taxi for hire isclearly a commercial purpose. But this decision requires to be considered in the light of the amendment of 1993 adding an explanation to the definition, to the effect that, purchase for self employed business is not acommercial purchase.

Case 2 Spring Meadows Hospital vs. Harjot Singh Ahluwalia

In 1998 the Supreme Court in Messrs Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia widened the scope of the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The hospital was also held liable on the principle of vicarious liability (when the master is held liable due to a negligent act or omission of his servant). In this case, Harjot Ahluwalia was left brain damaged after a wrong injection for treatment of typhoid (instead of chloromycetin, chloroquin was injected) was given to him by a nurse who had in turn been instructed to give the injection by the resident doctor. The Court awarded compensation not only to the child who suffered a grave injury but also to his parents who were considered consumers along with the child. The Court reasoned that the parents would support the child during their life and also for the mental agony caused to them for the injury of their child. The Court said that the definition of a 'Consumer' is wide and includes not only a person who hires or avails services but also the beneficiary of such services. In present this case the child as well as his parents would be a consumer and awarding compensation to both of them for injury each one of them has sustained is proper. The National Commission had awarded the compensation and Spring Meadows had appealed to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the National Commission. The Court said, "If the parents of the child having hired the services of the hospital are consumers within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) the child is also a consumer being a beneficiary of such services hired by his parents in the inclusive definition." The Court also commented upon Section 20-A of the Medical Council Act, 1956 which deals with Medical Ethics by saying "It is the function of medical ethics to ensure the superiority of a doctor is not abused in any manner." Further the Court observed that the relationship between the doctor and the patient is not always equally balanced. The attitude of a patient is poised between trust in the learning of another. And the general distress of one that is in a state of uncertainty and such ambivalence naturally leads to a sense of inferiority and it is, therefore, the function of medical ethics to ensure that the superiority of the doctor is not abused in any manner.

District Forum includes a judge and 2 other members one of whom shall be a woman. claim upto Rs. 20 lakh could be settled.
State Commission includes a judge and 2 other members one of whom shall be a woman. claims Rs. 20 lakh to 1 crore and cases which have been passed from District Forum. National Commission includes a judge and 4 other members one of whom shall be a woman. claims more than Rs. 1 crore and cases which have been passed form State Commission.