Free Treatment Is Still a “Service”: Patients Remain Consumers under Law

Introduction

The Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC) recently reaffirmed an important principle in consumer jurisprudence: even if medical treatment is offered free of cost, the patient remains a consumer under consumer protection laws. This decision reinforces the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995), ensuring accountability of medical service providers irrespective of whether treatment is paid for or provided gratuitously.

---

The Gujarat Case: Bharatkumar Gorahva (Legal Heirs) v. Akshar Surgical Hospital, Botad

• Background: In 2013, Bharatkumar Gorahva was admitted to Akshar Surgical Hospital in Botad for treatment of a fracture. He was treated without charges as part of a government medical scheme. Unfortunately, his condition worsened, leading to complications and eventual death.

• District Forum Decision (2015): The Bhavnagar District Consumer Forum dismissed the family’s complaint on the ground that the treatment was provided free of cost and hence, Gorahva was not a “consumer.”

• Appeal to State Commission (2025): The Gujarat SCDRC reversed the decision, holding that free treatment does not exclude a patient from the definition of “consumer.” It ruled that medical services, even when provided under government schemes or without fees, fall within the ambit of “service” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

Key Holding:

“Merely because treatment is offered without charges, a patient cannot be deprived of consumer rights. Medical services provided by hospitals, whether free or paid, are covered under the Act.”

Citation: Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bharatkumar Gorahva (Legal Heirs) v. Akshar Surgical Hospital, Botad, decision reported September 2025 (Times of India, Ahmedabad). Official case number pending publication.

---

Legal Provisions Involved

1. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (applicable when the case began):

   • Section 2(1)(d): Definition of “consumer.”

   • Section 2(1)(o): “Service” includes health care.

2. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (present law):

   • Section 2(7): Consumer definition.

   • Section 2(42): Service includes health care “whether or not for consideration.”

This continuity ensures that patients, whether paying or receiving free treatment under charitable or government programs, retain consumer rights.

---

Judicial Precedents

1. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 651

   • The Supreme Court held that medical services fall under “service” in consumer law, except when rendered entirely free in a government hospital without cross-subsidization.

2. Vasantha P. v. Manoharan (1999, Tamil Nadu SCDRC)

   • Ruled that free treatment provided by a private charitable hospital was still “service,” as the hospital also charged other patients, thus maintaining accountability.

3. Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha (2014) 1 SCC 384

   • Although about medical negligence and compensation, the Court reiterated the broad scope of consumer rights in medical services.

4. Chandigarh Consumer Commission (2009, PGIMER Case)

   • Even in government hospitals, where part of the services were subsidized or cross-funded, patients were considered consumers.

---

Implications of the Gujarat Decision

• Patient Rights Strengthened: Individuals availing treatment under government health schemes, insurance programs, or charity initiatives cannot be excluded from consumer protection.

• Hospital Accountability: Both private and government hospitals must maintain professional standards regardless of whether services are free or fee-based.

• Public Health Schemes: Schemes like Ayushman Bharat or state insurance programs fall squarely within consumer law coverage.

---

Conclusion

The Gujarat State Commission’s ruling reaffirms that access to justice under consumer protection is universal—no patient can be denied rights merely because they did not pay for treatment. Coupled with the Supreme Court’s interpretation in V.P. Shantha, this decision strengthens accountability in India’s health care system, ensuring that medical negligence does not escape scrutiny under the pretext of “free treatment.”

--------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer

This article is for information and educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified legal professional.

---

References:

• Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651.

• Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha, (2014) 1 SCC 384.

• Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(o).

• Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 2(7), 2(42).

• Times of India, Ahmedabad edition, “Free treatment also ‘service’, patient remains a consumer: Commission,” September 2025.

#ConsumerRights #Healthcare #MedicalNegligence #PatientSafety #PublicHealth #LegalAwareness #HealthJustice #ConsumerProtection #MedicalLaw #PatientRights #HealthPolicy