Jaganarayan Lal v. Doctor Smt. Girija Tiwari 2021(Case Summary)

This case is significant in determining who qualifies as a consumer and beneficiary under consumer protection laws, particularly in medical negligence claims. The case raised the fundamental question of whether a brother-in-law, acting as the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family, can file a consumer complaint for medical negligence regarding his sister-in-law’s treatment, or whether only the patient or their legal representative can do so.

Table of Contents

Facts of Jaganarayan Lal v. Doctor Smt. Girija Tiwari

Kiran Srivastava, who was four months pregnant, sought treatment from Dr. Girija Tiwari (The Respondent) on December 22, 2001.
Jaganarayan Lal (The Appellant) filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Dr. Girija Tiwari.
Jaganarayan Lal argued that he was the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family and was responsible for the welfare of all family members, including his sister-in-law.
He claimed that he had availed medical services on her behalf and therefore, had the legal standing to file the complaint.
Alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service, Jaganarayan Lal filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

Issues framed

Whether the appellant, Jaganarayan Lal, had the legal standing (locus standi) to file a consumer complaint regarding alleged medical negligence towards his sister-in-law?
Whether a brother-in-law of a patient can be considered a “consumer” or “beneficiary” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
Whether the concept of a Joint Hindu Family extends to availing medical services for a pregnant sister-in-law?

Subordinate Court Judgment

The District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint filed by Jaganarayan Lal, ruling that he did not qualify as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Forum found that the complainant was not the patient (Kiran Srivastava) who received the medical treatment, nor did he hire or pay for the medical services. The Forum rejected the appellant’s argument that, as the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family, he had the right to file a consumer complaint on behalf of his sister-in-law. It ruled that the concept of a Joint Hindu Family does not extend to medical treatment decisions for in-laws.

The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission upheld the District Commission’s order, ruling that Jaganarayan Lal was not a “consumer” as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. A similar stand was taken by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Judgment of Jaganarayan Lal v. Doctor Smt. Girija Tiwari

The Supreme Court analyzed Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which defines who can file a consumer complaint. The Court also examined Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which defines a “consumer” as someone who hires or avails a service for consideration.

The Court held that Jaganarayan Lal was neither a direct consumer nor a beneficiary under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that Jaganarayan Lal, as the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family, had the right to file the complaint. The Hindu law concept of Karta applies mainly to financial and property matters and does not extend to filing consumer complaints for medical services availed by an in-law. Since Jaganarayan Lal had not personally paid for the medical treatment, nor was he a legal heir or representative of the patient, his complaint was found to be non-maintainable.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a brother-in-law cannot file a consumer complaint for medical negligence against a doctor on behalf of his sister-in-law. The concept of a Joint Hindu Family does not extend to availing medical services for an in-law. Only the patient, their legal heir, or a person who directly availed the service can file such a complaint.