Format of Reply by the Doctor/clinic/nursing home/Hospital (Written Statement)

Format of Reply by the Doctor/clinic/nursing home/Hospital (Written Statement)

Before the Hon'ble             Court
In Re: Complaint No.             /2013

X (Full Name and description)                                                  ...................Complainant

V.

Y (full name and Description)                                          .............................Opposite Party

Respectfully showeth:

Preliminary Objections:

(1) That the present complaint is wholly groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as such.
(2) no jurisdiction
(3) manifestly outside the purview of the said Act
non est, null and void and without jurisdiction
(4) 'Complainant', "consumer dispute", "service" as defined in Section 2 (1) of the said act
(5) baseless and abuse of process of law
(6) no locus standi
(7) bad for non-rejoinder
(8) infructuous
(9) barred by limitation
(10) no territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction
(11) frivolous and vexatious
(12) in accordance with law
(13) medical service free of cost

On merits

(1) Contributory negligence
(2) extra fee
(3) afterthought
(4) gesture of goodwill
(5) concealed previous illness
(6) misconceived
(7)
(8) potential risks known complication

                                                               Opposite Party
                                                                Through .................
                                                                 (Advocate or Consumer Association, etc..)

Place:
Date:

Verification
I.................the respondent above-mentioned, do hereby solemnly state that the contents of my complaint are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.

Date:
Opposite Party

Consumer Forum Response

Assume that you have received a notice from State Consumer Forum as a consequence of the case filed by your patient against you on the ground of medical negligence. Briefly outline the procedure you are expected to Follow.

Plaint Order VII
Notice
Response within 30 days
Further extension requested for 30 days
Written Statement Under Order VIII Rule
Set-off, counter-complaint

Contributory negligence
Pecuniary Jurisdiction 20 Lakhs to 1 Crore

Amplitude Of Medical Negligence Liability Of The Government Hospitals Under The Consumers Protection Act, 1986: A Critical Analysis Of Provisions And Ground Realities

Amplitude Of Medical Negligence Liability Of The Government Hospitals Under The Consumers Protection Act, 1986: A Critical Analysis Of Provisions And Ground Realities

http://airwebworld.com/articles/index.php?article=1053

INTRODUCTION:

On 31 Jan 2009, five new born babies were killed and one injured when a fire broke out at a government hospital in Patiala (Punjab). It is believed that a short circuit triggered the fire. The fire began in an incubator at around 0330 hrs. Five infants kept in the incubator were burnt alive. Four other children, undergoing treatment in the same ward, were rescued.¹ . These are few instances which have been reported in media. Why people hesitate to visit the government hospitals even though the services are provided free of cost? It is mainly due to the conditions that have been prevailing in these hospitals such as the scarcity of medicines and doctors and risk involved. The Central Government as well as the State Governments have been allocating thousands of crores of rupees on medical services provided at various levels in states and union territories. Valuable resources of the nation are invested in these hospitals but the ground reality depicts a shoddy picture of the services provided at these hospitals. This paper would focus on the existing ground realities and judicial trends pertaining to the liability of medical professionals employed at government hospitals, under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFE GUARD OF MEDICAL CARE IN INDIA

The Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution of Indie require the state to make effective provision for public health, and for just and humane conditions of work. It is the primary duty of the state to raise the level of nutrition, the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health. The Constitution of India, 1950, Arts 42 and 47 indicate that government had become conscious of this modern phenomenon and this provision may serve the function of providing a constitutional footing for further legislative and administrative action. InParamanand Katara vs. Union of India² the Supreme Court of India has declared that the right to medical aid is an integral part of right to life. It is an obligation on the state to preserve life by extending required medical assistance. In fact, the apex court has held that right to health and medical care is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, 1950. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Paschim Bangal Khet Mazdoor Samity³ has held that providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligation undertaken by the government in a welfare state. The Constitution of India 1950 under Article 21 imposes an obligation on the state to safeguard the right to life of every person and breach of which may enable him to move the Supreme Court on high court through writ petition.

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE TERM PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

Professionals such as doctors, lawyers, architects and others are included in the category of persons professing special skill. Any reasonable man practicing a profession requires particular level of learning and impliedly assures the person dealing with him that he possesses such requisite qualifications and that he will profess his skill with reasonable degree of care and caution. It follows that a professional man should command corpus of knowledge of the profession he is practicing. He should not lag behind other intelligent members of his profession in knowledge of new advances. He should be alert to the hazard and risk in any professional task he undertakes. He must bring to any professional task he undertakes expertise, skill and care similar to other ordinary members of his profession, but need bring no more. The standard is that of the reasonable average. He need not possess the highest nor a very low degree of care and competence. A person is not liable in negligence because someone of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way, nor is he guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical men skilled in that particular art. The medical practitioner is liable only if his conduct fell below that of the standard of a reasonable competent practitioner in his field.

The Supreme Court in the leading case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Anr⁴ has interpreted the term negligence. The Supreme Court observed that “A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence”.

“Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury to his person or property. ...the definition involves three constituents of negligence: (1) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the former's conduct within the scope of the duty; (2) breach of the said duty; and (3) consequential damage. Cause of action for negligence arises only when damage occurs; for, damage is a necessary ingredient of this tort”.⁵

The House of Lords in the Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd⁶ created the rule of "reasonable reliance" by the claimant on the skills of the defendant. The House analyzed the duty to take care as an integral part of the term negligence. Lord Morris observed that “Where a person is so placed that others could reasonably rely upon his judgment or his skill or upon his ability to make careful inquiry, and a person takes it upon himself to give information or advice to, or allows his information or advice to be passed on to, another person who, as he knows or should know, will place reliance upon it, then a duty of care will arise."

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY UNDER CIVIL LAW CRIMINAL LAW

Civil Law

There are two types of negligence, civil and criminal. A civil negligence lawsuit involves private individuals suing someone for a negligent act that violates their private rights. Civil negligence generally involves careless or ignorant behavior but not intent, e.g., carelessly ramming a car stopped at an intersection. Criminal negligence is more serious and involves committing a crime against society and intending to commit it. Criminal cases arise in which the local legal authorities charge a person with an offense under the criminal code, e.g., manslaughter. Criminal negligence involves wanton disregard for the safety or lives of others. Both civil and criminal cases may result from a single act of negligence.

Negligence in the medical world has assumed great importance in relation to the medical malpractices suits in various countries in Asia, Europe, and USA. In India damages may be claimed against the doctor before the Civil Court in case of negligence under the law of torts⁷. The Bolam Test which was evolved in Bolam vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee⁸ is widely accepted as decisive of the standard of care required by professionals and medical professionals in particular. It has been invariably cited with approval before courts in India and applied to as touchstone to test of pleas of medical negligence. Bolam test requires a professional that: (1) he must command the corpus of knowledge and not lag behind other assiduous members of his profession; (2) he must have such an awareness as an ordinarily competent practitioner would have of deficiencies of his knowledge and the limitations of his skill; and (3) he must be alert of the hazards and risks in any professional task he undertakes to the extent that other members of same profession.

The Supreme Court in Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole and Anr⁹ held that a person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for that purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to be given or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires. The doctor no doubt has discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency.

Criminal Law

Doctors employed at government hospitals may be prosecuted for criminal negligence, under section 304A¹⁰, section 336¹¹, 337¹², and 338¹³ of the Indian Penal Code 1861. The Supreme Court¹⁴ has pointed out that liability in civil law is based upon the amount of damages incurred; in criminal law, the amount and degree of negligence is a factor in determining liability. In Syad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka¹⁵ the Supreme Court has pointed with reasons with the distinction between negligence in civil and criminal proceedings, namely, the proof in civil case mere balance of probabilities is sufficient while in criminal case proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. Negligence must be gross not an error of judgment in both the cases.. It has been observed that the Criminal Courts as well as Civil Courts in India have failed to provide speedy and economical justice.

The criminal law has invariably placed the medical professionals on a pedestal different from ordinary mortals. The Indian Penal Code enacted as far back as in the year 1860 sets out a few vocal examples. Section 88 in the Chapter on General Exceptions provides exemption for acts not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit. Section 92 provides for exemption for acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person without his consent though the acts cause harm to a person and that person has not consented to suffer such harm. There are four exceptions listed in the Section which is not necessary in this context to deal with. Section 93 saves from criminality certain communications made in good faith.

The Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Anr¹⁶ opined that “We may not be understood as holding that doctors can never be prosecuted for an offence of which rashness or negligence is an essential ingredient. All that we are doing is to emphasize the need for care and caution in the interest of society; for, the service which the medical profession renders to human beings is probably the noblest of all, and hence there is a need for protecting doctors from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. Many a complainants prefer recourse to criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professional for extracting uncalled for or unjust compensation. Such malicious proceedings have to be guarded against”.

DIFFICULTIES IN DEFINING CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

In tort it is an amount of damage which is an issue but in criminal law it is the amount of degree of negligence that determines the liability. The degree of negligence has to be higher than that in civil law. Criminal negligence is “Gross & Culpable Neglect or failure” to exercise reasonable and proper care to guard against injury when it was the imperative duty of the accused person to adopt. The feature of grossness or degree those assume significance in negligence punishable is a crime where the negligence has to be gross or of a very high degree. Cases of criminal negligence arise from acts or omissions if the accused was under a legal duty to do the omitted act. To meet the standard for criminal negligence, the act or omission must show a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions¹⁷, stated, "Simple lack of care -- such as will constitute civil liability is not enough; for purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence; and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is established." Thus, a clear distinction exists between "simple lack of care" incurring civil liability and "very high degree of negligence" which is required in criminal cases.

The law laid down in John Oni Akerele v. The King¹⁸ by the House of Lords, has been accepted by the Indian Supreme Court in Jacob Methew Case¹⁹.Their Lordships have held:-

(i) That a doctor is not criminally responsible for a patient's death unless his negligence or incompetence went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State.;

(ii) That the degree of negligence required is that it should be gross, and that neither a jury nor a court can transform negligence of a lesser degree into gross negligence merely by giving it that appellation.... There is a difference in kind between the negligence which gives a right to compensation and the negligence which is a crime.

(iii) It is impossible to define culpable or criminal negligence, and it is not possible to make the distinction between actionable negligence and criminal negligence intelligible, except by means of illustrations drawn from actual judicial opinion....The most favourable view of the conduct of an accused medical man has to be taken, for it would be most fatal to the efficiency of the medical profession if no one could administer medicine without a halter round his neck."

JUDICIAL TRENDS ON MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS

The Consumers Protection Act 1986 has been enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected therewith. Section 2 (o) of the Act has defined the term services²⁰. Certain services like as free services are excluded from the ambit of the Act. The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 provides that a doctor is under obligation to take care of patients. The basic principle is that medical doctors and associated medical professionals are responsible and liable for wrongs and failures in the performance of their medical duties towards patients

The Supreme Court in landmark decision of Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha and Ors²¹ has analysed the scope of medical services provided at private and government hospitals under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986. The Court observed that the medical practitioners, Government Hospitals /nursing homes and private hospitals/nursing homes (hereinafter called "doctors and hospitals ") broadly fall in three categories:

(i) where services are rendered free of charge to everybody availing the said services,

(ii) where charges are required to be paid by everybody availing the services, and

(iii) where charges are required to be paid by persons availing services but certain categories of persons who cannot afford to pay are rendered service free of charges.

The Supreme Court held that where services are rendered free of charge to everybody availing the services, The medical officer who is employed in the hospital renders the service on behalf of the hospital administration and if the service, as rendered by the hospital, does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o), being free of charge, the same service cannot be treated as service under Section 2(1)(o) for the reason that it has been rendered by a medical officer in the hospital who receives salary for employment in the hospital. There is no direct nexus between the payment of the salary to the medical officer by the hospital administration and the person to whom service is rendered. The salary that is paid by the hospital administration to the employee medical officer cannot be regarded as payment made on behalf of the person availing the service or for his benefit so as to make the person availing the service a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) in respect of the service rendered to him. The service rendered by the employee medical officer to such a person would, therefore, continue to be service rendered free of charge and would be outside the purview of Section 2(1)(o),

“The Government Hospitals may not be commercial in that sense but on the overall consideration of the objectives and the scheme of the Act it would not be possible to treat the Government Hospitals differently. We are of the view that in such a situation the persons belonging to "poor class" who are provided services free of charge are the beneficiaries of the service which is hired or availed of by the "paying class". The Court observed that the service rendered by the doctors and Hospitals falling in category (iii) irrespective of the fact that part of the service is rendered free of charge, would nevertheless fall within the ambit of the expression "service" as defined in Section2(1)(o) of the Act and the persons who are rendered free service are the "beneficiaries" and as such come within the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act,”

The Supreme Court finally held that the “doctors and hospitals who render service without any charge whatsoever to every person availing the service would not fall within the ambit of "service" under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purposes only would not alter the position in respect of such doctors and hospitals. Category of doctors and hospitals do provide free service to some of the patients belonging to the poor class but the bulk of the service is rendered to the patients on payment basis. The expenses incurred for providing free service are met out of the income from the service rendered to the paying patients, The service rendered by such doctors and hospitals to paying patients undoubtedly fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act”. The tax paid by the person availing the service at a Government hospital cannot be treated as a consideration or charge for the service rendered at the said hospital and such service though rendered free of charge does not cease to be so because the person availing the service happens to be a tax payer.”

FINAL THOUGHTS

More than 25% of Indian population living below poverty line does not have any access to any medical facility, but to the government hospitals. The government hospitals have failed miserably to cater to the needs of general public.It is proved beyond doubt that Criminal as well as Civil courts in India due to complex and prolonged procedures have failed to provide speedy and economical justice to unprivileged and down trodden people of society. The Supreme Court of India in Guru Nank Foundation Vs Rattan Singh & Sons²² and the Trustee of the Port of Madras Vs Engineering Construction Corporation Ltd²³, held that interminable, time consuming, complex and expensive court procedures impelled jurists to search for an alternative forum, less formal, more effective and speedy for resolution of disputes avoiding procedural claptrap and this led them to Alternative Dispute Resolution. The Forums and Commissions constituted under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 provide less formal mechanism and that is also capable of providing speedy and economical justice to general public. It is strongly recommended that the services provided at the government hospitals should be brought within the ambit of the services under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986, in order to ensure the accountability and promote sense of responsibility among the personnel who are employed in these hospitals to look after the welfare of general public and restore the faith of general public in these institutions. 

---

This research paper was presented at the National Level Seminar cum workshop on “Medical Negligence and consumer protection” conducted by the National Law University Jodhpur , Rajasthan on 21 Feb 2009

1 Times of India 1^st Feb 2009, ; similar kind of incidents had happened in Delhi where A five-day old baby girl was burnt to death as the incubator she had been kept in caught fire at a Delhi Government hospital. The incident took place at the Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital in Pitampura around 2.30 am on 11 March 2008. Hospital authorities attributed the incubator fire to a short-circuit. By the time an alarm was raised, fire had engulfed the incubator and the newborn was dead.

2 AIR 1989 SC 2039

3 AIR 1996 SC 2426

4 2005CriLJ3710

5 Ibid

6 (1964) AC 465

7 Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to care. It means carelessness in a matter in which the law mandates carefulness. A breach of this duty gives a patient the right to initiate action against negligence.

8 1957 INDLAW QBD 53

9 [1969]1SCR206

10 Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 states that whoever causes the death of a person by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of two years, or with a fine, or with both

11 336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.

12 337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

13 338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person to doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

14 State of Haryana vs. Smt. Santra , AIR 2000 SC 3335

15 (1980) SCC (1) 30

16 AIR2005SC3180

17 [1937] A.C. 576

18 AIR 1943 PC 72; A duly qualified medical practitioner gave to his patient the injection of Sobita which consisted of sodium bismuth tart rate as given in the British Pharmacopoea. However, what was administered was an overdose of Sobita. The patient died. The doctor was accused of manslaughter, reckless and negligent act. He was convicted. The matter reached in appeal before the House of Lords. Their Lordships quashed the conviction

19 AIR2005SC3180

20 "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, 6[housing construction], entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;

21 AIR 1996 SC 550

22 1981, 4 SCC 634

23 1995,4 Scale, 742

Total shows: 558
Author:  Dr. Jeet Singh Mann, Asstt. Professor (Law) National Law University, Delhi

Back to the list

Jurisdiction of the district forum

11. Jurisdiction of the district forum.
http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/consumerprotectionact/s11.htm
(1) Subject to other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the Compensation if any, claimed 1[does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs].

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, -

(a) The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or 2[carries on business or has a branch office, or] personally works for gain; or

(b) Any of the opposite parties where there are more then one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or 2[carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or 2[carry on business or have a branch office], or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part arises.

1. Substituted by Act 50 of 1993, sec.9 for "is less than rupees one lakh"(w. e. f. 18-6-1993) and again subs. by Act 62 of 2002, sec. 7, for "does not exceed rupees five lakhs" (w. e. f. 15-3-2003)

2. Subs. by Act 50 of 1993, sec.9 for "carries on business or" (w. r. e. f. 18-6-1993).

Consumer Protection Act

Introduction
The year 1986 is a Magna Carta in the history of Consumerism. It was this year that witnessed the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act. The first ever legislation in India of its kind which solely aimed at the grief staken consumers who the victims of the unfair trade practices and substandard services rendered to them. The preamble to this Act reads as follows: An Act to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers and to make provisions for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers disputes and for matter connected therewith. Thus the preamble to this Act makes the intention of the framers of this Act crystal clear . The setting up of the dispute redressal machinery was only to secure and enable speedy justice to the aggrieved consumers. The enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a milestone in the history of socio-economic legislation in India, has considerably consolidated the process of consumer protection and has given rise, during the past few years, to new consumer jurisprudence. The act introduced a three-tier quasi-judicial consumer disputes redressal mechanism at the district, state and national level for dispensing inexpensive and time-bound consumer justice. Though passed in 1986, its effective implementation started only in 1990 when the institutions envisaged under the act were established throughout the country, thereby enabling a large number of consumers and organisations to approach these forums for the redressal of their grievances.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 underwent some amendments. Among them the important and latest amendment is of 2002. So we can say that the Act is in focus to the needs of the time. With this introduction, let me explain my assignment topic i.e, State Commission under Consumer Protection Act.

1. Composition of the State Commission (Section 16)
Each State Commission shall consist of One President and two or more other members.

1.1 The President
The President shall be a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed by the State Government. His appointment should be made in consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court.

1.2 Members
In the state commission there should be not less than two, and not more than such number of members, as may be prescribed, and one of whom shall be a woman.

1.2.1 Qualifications of members
The members should have the following qualifications in order to be a member in the state commission for consumer disputes redressel
(i) be not less than thirty-five years of age;
(ii) possess a bachelor's degree from a recognised university; and(iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration:

Provided that not more than fifty per cent. of the members shall be from amongst persons having a judicial background. Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, the expression 'persons having judicial background'' shall mean persons having knowledge and experience for at least a period of ten years as a presiding officer at the district level court or any tribunal at equivalent level.

1.2.2 Disqualifications of Members (Section 16(1))
A new proviso has been added to Section 16(1), by the Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2002. They are as following
(a) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude; or
(b) is an undischarged insolvent; or
(c) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or
(d) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the Government or a body corporate owned or controlled by the Government; or
(e) has, in the opinion of the State Government, such financial or other
interest, as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member; or
(f) has such other disqualifications as may be prescribed by the State Government.

1.2.3 Selection committee for appointment of members (Sec.16 (1A))
Every appointment under sub-section (1) shall be made by the State Government on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of the following members, namely:
(i) President of the State Commission........... Chairman;
(ii) Secretary of the Law Department of the State ....Member;
(iii) Secretary incharge of the Department dealing with Consumer Affairs in the State..... Member:

Provided that where the President of the State Commission is, by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to act as Chairman of the Selection Committee, the State Government may refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court for nominating a sitting Judge of that High Court to act as Chairman.

1.2.4 Term of Office (Section 16 (3))
Every member of the State Commission shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier: Provided that a member shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that he fulfills the qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) and such re-appointment is made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Provided further that a person appointed as a President of the State Commission shall also be eligible for re-appointment in the manner provided in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of this section.

A member may resign his office in writing under his hand addressed to the State Government and on such resignation being accepted, his office shall become vacant and may be filled by appointment of a person possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) in relation to the category of the member who is required to be appointed under the provisions of sub-section (1A) in place of the person who has resigned.

2 Jurisdiction of the State Commission
Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction

2.1 Pecuniary Jurisdiction
Complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore, then it comes under the pecuniary jurisdiction of State Commission.

It may be noted that prior to amendment the pecuniary jurisdiction of state commission was upto 20 lakhs. By the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, the jurisdiction of the State Commission has been increased to Rs. 1 Crore. The change is likely to be beneficial to the consumer. It will reduce the number of complaints to the National Commission.

2.2 Territorial Jurisdiction
A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction:
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

2.3 Appellate Jurisdiction (Section 15)
Section 15 of the Act gives the right to prefer an appeal to the state commission within a period of thirty days from the date of order of the District Forum to any person who has been aggrieved by the order. The time limit may be extended by the state commission on showing sufficient cause.

The person making an appeal should deposit 50% of the decreed amount or Rs.25000/- whichever is less. This requirement has been introduced by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.

3. Transfer of cases (Section 17 A)
This section is also inserted by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002. This section enables the State Commission to transfer a Case from one District Forum to another within the state. On the application of a complaint or of its own motion, the State Commission may, at any stage of the proceeding, transfer any complaint pending before the District Forum to another District Forum within the State if the interest of justice so requires.

4. Circuit Benches (Section 17 B)
This is a new provision inserted in the Act by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002. Section 17 B, provides for establishment of Circuit Benches of State Commission. The State Commission shall ordinarily function in the State Capital but may perform its functions at such other place as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette, from time to time.

5. Expeditious hearing of appeal (Section 19 A)
A new section, 19A, has been inserted by the consumer protection (Amendment) Act, 2002. It provides that endeavour shall be made to dispose of appeals filed before the State Commission or the National Commission within ninety days from the date of admission. It provided for expeditious hearing of appeal, quicker decision and restriction of adjournment.

Conclusion
The scope of the Consumer Protection Act is widening in the society which is pro to globalization, industrialization and Privatization. So the Legislature has taken all the possible steps by making timely amendments to the Act in accordance with the needs of time. In fact all the amendments made to the Consumer Protection Act by the 2002 Amendments aim at furthering the efficiency of the Act and doing away with procedural delays which render the consumers disillusioned and dissatisfied. These Amendments have been fruitful in providing protection to the consumers in the real sense of the term and served the purpose of the Act. It is hoped that further amendments would aim at even more efficiency and render the position of the consumers much stronger in this era of globalization and privatization where the sudden unchecked advent of Multi National Companies has to be balanced with the protection of the rights of the consumers by the legislature and the judiciary.