IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 02/15
Friday the 30th day of October, 2015
Petitioner : Jose C Moolayil,
S/o.Chacko
Moolayil Veedu,
Vazhappally PO,
Changanachery, Kottayam 686 103
Vs
Opposite parties : The Administrator,
St.Thomas Hospital,
Chethipuzha PO,
Changanachery 686 104
(Adv. Siby Mathew)
2) Dr. Mathew George,
Dept.of Orthopedics,
St. Thomas Hospital, Chethipuzha PO,
Changanachery-686 104.
(Adv. Sajeev Mathew)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 5-1-15 is as follows.
The complainant was admitted on 7-9-14 at 1st opposite party hospital for the treatment for the injuries sustained on his right knee by an accident and treated by the 2nd opposite party. And on 12-9-14 complainant was discharged and 1st opposite party collected Rs.45,120/- as treatment expenses. According to the complainant 1st opposite party collected excess amount by exaggerating, which service were not provided by the opposite parties to the complainant. The 1st opposite party collected Rs.5000/- as anesthesia charge but there was no necessity to give anesthesia because there was only minor injuries. The 2nd opposite party give only local anesthesia and treated. Furthermore 1st opposite party illegally collected Rs.15,000/- as Ortho charge without providing such service to the complainant. And also 1st opposite party collected Rs.10,000/- as theater charge. According to the complainant he was not admitted in the operation theater or they never provide any service by using the facilities of the operation theater. Thus the 1st opposite party collected Rs.30,000/- in excess amount on simply stating that they provide some service, which was not provided by the opposite parties. According to the complainant the said act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint filed for the order for directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.30,000/- and cost and compensation.
The first opposite party has not filed version.
The second opposite party filed version contenting that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. According to the 2nd opposite party complainant has no complaint about modality of treatment provided by him and there was no allegation of any negligence from the part of 2nd opposite party. The complaint is pertaining to the bill issued by the 1st opposite party hospital and the 2nd opposite party is a paid employee of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party had attended the complainant and on examination there were lacerated wounds over his right knee and upper part of right leg over the front. As there was active bleeding from open wound with lowering BP and signs of going to hypovolemic shock, he was shifted to the operation theatre. Complainant was stabilized with IV fluids and through ligation and cauterization bleeding was arrested. After stabilizing the patient in surgical ICU through wound debridement wash out and cleaning was done along with further arrest of bleeding. The complainant was managed with IV antibiotics, analgesics and discharged on 12/9/14 with an advice for regular follow up in the orthopedic OPD. The wounds healed well and the complainant was completely cured by the treatment of the 2nd opposite party. The allegation that complainant did not sustain a wound requiring operation under anesthesia is not correct. The complainant underwent wound debridement and muscle and ligament repair which was done under spinal anesthesia. The second opposite party had done the surgical procedures as per accepted medical practices. According to the 2nd opposite party the quantum of amount charged for various services provided by the hospital is left to the hospital authorities and the second opposite party has no roll in preparation of the bill. And the 2nd opposite party has not collected any amount from the complainant. According to the 2nd opposite party there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on his part of them. And 2nd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for determinations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 to A3 documents.
Point No.1
The case of the complainant is that, the 1st opposite party collected exorbitant amount for the treatment obtained by him for the injuries sustained in a motor cycle accident. According to the complainant he was availed treatment for the injuries sustained on his right knee. He had treated by giving only local anesthesia. Opposite party had not provide any service by using the facilities of the operation theater and provide any service in connection with Ortho department. But 1st opposite party collected Rs.30,000/- in excess as anesthesia charges, Ortho charge and theater charge. Complainant produced the discharge summary issued by the 1st opposite party hospital and the same is marked as Ext.A1. In Ext.A1 it is mentioned that on final diagnosis the complainant sustained Type III open wound on knee. It is also mentioned that the procedures followed for treatment “wound debridement”, wash cut under SA on 7-9-14 + repeat wash cut suturing on 8-9-14. No where in A1 mentioned regarding that the opposite parties provide any service in connection with the Ortho department or provide any service by using the facilities of operation theatre or admitted in the operation theater and give anesthesia for providing treatment. According to the 2nd opposite party he had attended the complainant and he had sustained lacerated wounds over right knee and upper part of right leg over the front. The second opposite party had done the surgical procedures as per accepted medical practices. And the wounds healed well and the complainant was completely cured by the treatment. The complainant has no complaint about the treatment done by the 2nd opposite party and complainant has no allegation about the negligence from the part of 2nd opposite party. According to the 2nd opposite party the bill was issued by the 1st opposite party and he has no connection with the issuance of the bill. Complainant produced the bill issued by the 1st opposite party and the same is marked as Ext.A2. In Ext.A2 it can be seen that 1st opposite party collected Rs.5000/- as Anesthesia charge, Rs.15,000/- as Ortho charge and Rs.10,000/- as theater charge. In the absence of contra evidence we are constrained to rely on the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A3 documents. So in our view the act of 1st opposite party in collecting Rs.5000/- as anesthesia charge, Rs.15,000/- as Ortho charge and Rs.10,000/- as theater charge without providing such treatments and service in connection with concerned department, amounts to deficiency in service. Due to the said act of opposite parties complainant had suffered much mental pain and suffering. So he is to be compensated. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in Point No.1 complaint is allowed.
In the result,
- The 1st opposite party is ordered to refund Rs.30,000/-, the excess amount collected, to the complainant.
- The 1st opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.5000/-, as compensation, to the complainant.
- The 1st opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.5000/-, as this litigation cost, to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2015.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents for the complainant
Ext.A1-Discharge summary
Ext.A2- Copy of IP Bill No. IP 00039890 dtd 12/9/14
Ext.A3-Surgical details bill
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
