The court summarized the key details and outcomes of the case. It found that both the parents and child were considered "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act since the parents hired the hospital services for the benefit of their child. The court upheld the commission's decision to award compensation to both the parents and child for the injuries suffered due to medical negligence of the hospital. The court dismissed the hospital's appeal and supported compensating the parents for their mental agony of seeing their child in a vegetative state.

1. Spring Meadows Hospital
Vs. Harjol Ahluwalia 1998

2. INTRODUCTION
► The Consumer Protection Act of 1986:The Act enables the consumers for speedy
settlement of disputes and provides better protection to the rights and interests
of consumers. The Act succinctly defines who falls within the ambit of 'consumer’.
► It also confers jurisdiction on the Commission on matters comprising of unfair
trade practices, defects in goods, and deficiencies in services.
► The court in this case has helped define the scope of section 2(1) (d) of the
Consumer Protection Act and whether such compensation can be granted to a
person who hires to avail the services as well.

3. FACTS
A Complaint Petition was filed by minor Harjot Ahluwalia through his parents Mrs. Harpreet Ahluwalia and Mr. Kamaljit Singh Ahluwalia
before the Commission stating that the minor was being treated at a Nursing Home in Noida. As there was no improvement in his
health minor was brought to M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital which is the appellant in the later challenging case.
In the hospital, the patient was examined by the Senior Consultant Paediatrician, dr. Promila Bhutani and on her advice the patient was
admitted as an in-patient in the hospital. The doctor made the diagnosis that the patient was suffering from typhoid; and intimated the
parents that medicines have been prescribed for the treatment of typhoid fever.
On the 30th of December, 1993 at 9.00 a.m. Miss Bina Matthew, nurse of the hospital asked the father of the minor patient to get the
injection; – In Lariago – to be administered intravenously to the minor patient. Whereupon the nurse injected the same to the minor
patient. The patient, immediately on being injected collapsed while still in the lap of his mother.
it was further alleged that before giving the injection the nurse had not made any sensitive test to find out; whether there would be any
adverse reaction on the patient. Seeing the minor child collapse the parents immediately called for help and the Resident Doctor Dr.
Dhananjay attended the patient. Said Dr. Dhananjay told the parents that the child had suffered a cardiac arrest; and then by manually
pumping the chest, the Doctor attempted to revive the heartbeat. The hospital authorities then summoned an Anaesthetist, Dr. Anil
Mehta who arrived within half an hour; and then started a procedure of manual respiration by applying the oxygen cylinder and manual
Respirator.

4. In the meantime, Dr. Promila Bhutani also reached the hospital and the minor child was kept on a device called manual Respirator. Though there was no improvement in
the condition of the child. In the course of treatment as the minor’s platelet count fell; a blood transfusion was given but still, no improvement could be seen. Dr. Mehta;
therefore, intimated the parents that the hospital does not have the necessary facilities to manage the minor child; and he should be shifted to an intensive Care Unit
equipped with an Auto Respirator.
Consumer Protection Act
On the advice of Dr. Mehta, the parents admitted the child in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit of the All India Institute of Medical Science. In the Institute the doctors
examined the minor child thoroughly; and informed the parents that the child is critical; and even if he would survive; he would live only in a vegetative state as irreparable
damage had been caused to his brain; and there was no chance of revival of the damaged parts. The minor was then thereafter discharged after informing the parents;
that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the minor child there.
Dr. Anil Mehta as well as Dr. Naresh Juneja, Chief Administrator of Spring Meadows Hospital, however, offered to admit the minor child at their hospital; and to do
whatever was possible to stabilize the condition of the child and accordingly the minor child was again admitted to the hospital.
On account of negligence and deficiency on the part of the hospital authorities suffered irreparable damages and could survive only as a mere vegetative and accordingly
claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 28 lakh.

5. ISSUES
► Can the parents of the child claim compensation under the provisions of The Consumer
Protection Act?
► Does Section 14 of the Act vest power in the Commission to grant compensation to the
parents of the child for the mental agony endured?
► Can the parents of the child be construed as ‘consumers’ under Section 2 (1)(d) of The
Act.
► If the parents and child fall under the purview of Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act, can the
compensation be awarded to the beneficiary of the services rendered, that is the child in
the present case or are both the consumers eligible for the compensation?

6. ARGUMENTS
Arguments put forth by the petitioner:
► The counsel appearing on behalf of the hospital contended the complainant being a
minor child can be the only one construed as ‘consumer’ and the parents of the
minor child cannot claim compensation under the Consumer Protection Act for the
mental agony they have suffered.
► It was contended that as per the provisions of Section 12 (1)(a) of the Act, only the
consumer to whom services has been provided can make a complaint.
► It was contended that under the provision of Section 14 clause (d) of the Act, the
Commission cannot be enabled to grant an award of compensation to both the
parents and the child.

7. ► It was contended that the hospital authorities had displayed humanitarian approach by
re-admitting the patient without charging any money after being discharged from AIIMS
and thus, in such a situation an award of damages for mental agony to the parents is
wholly unjustified.
► It was lastly contended that under Section 14 (1)(d) of the Act, the Commission would be
entitled to pay the compensation for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer.
► The counsel on behalf of the insurer, contended that the insurer is not liable to
indemnify the hospital as the hospital had employed incompetent people to treat the
patients and the direction of the Commission that the insurer should indemnify the
insured is ‘unsustainable in law’

8. JUDGEMENTS
► The court in order to answer the question of whether the parents of the minor child fall within the
definition of ‘consumer under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act, analyzed clause (ii) of the section and
stated that the clause being broad enough, a ‘consumer’ “would include not only the person who
hires the services but also the beneficiary of such services which beneficiary is other than the person
who hires the services.” Thus, the parents of the minor child and the child would be ‘consumers’
within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and can claim compensation in the present case.
► The court while answering the question of whether the Commission can grant compensation to the
parents of the minor child rejected the contention of the petitioner and stated that the parents of
the child having hired the services of the hospital and the child is the beneficiary of such services fall
within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Thus, the Commission would be fully justified in
awarding compensation under Section 14 clause (d), to both the parents and the child for the injury
sustained by them. It further stated that such compensation was awarded to the parents of the
minor child for their acute mental agony and the life-long care and attention they would have to
bestow on the child. Thus, the court saw no infirmity in the order of the Commission and upheld its
decision to award compensation to the parents, in addition to the compensation in favor of the
minor child.

9. ► The court rejected the contention of the appellant and stated that the mental agony
endured by the parent by seeing their only child in a vegetative state on account of
medical negligence cannot be palliated by the ‘humanitarian approach’ of the Hospital
and such approach can’t be considered to be a factor in denying the compensation for
mental agony suffered by the parents.
► The contentions raised by the counsel appearing for the appellants having failed, the
appeal failed and was hence, dismissed. Thus, both the appeals were dismissed with
costs of Rs. 5000

10. CONCLUSION
► Thus, the court through this case defined the scope of Section 2(1) (d) of the Act and
further ascertained that the Commission would be entitled to award compensation
under Section 14 clause (d) of the Act, to a consumer, for any loss or injury suffered by
them, due to the negligence of the opposite party.

11. GROUP MEMBERS
► HIMMAT SUTHAR-156
► VIDHI JAIN-113
► ADITI SHARMA-120
► HUNNY RANJANI-129
► MUSKAN SHAIKH-107
► HIMANSHU PARAKH-147
► SHREYAS SRIVASTAVA-159