BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.

                                                                          Complaint Case No. :  623 of 2021

                                                                          Date of Institution    :   09.12.2021

                                                                          Date of Decision      :   03.08.2022

Ram Kali wife of Sh. Sube Singh R/o Village Ahirka Tehsil and District Jind.

.….Complainant

Versus

Advanta Super Speciality Hospital, Dev Colony, Delhi Road, Rohtak (Haryana) through its M.d. Dr. Harish Kumar.

   ……Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 35 of the  Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:        SH. MUKESH BANSAL, PRESIDENT.

                        SMT. NEERU AGARWAL, MEMBER.

            SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.

Present:          Sh. Surender Khatkar, learned counsel for complainant.

                        OP exparte vide order dated 03.02.2022.

ORDER:

                        This order shall dispose off a complaint preferred by complainant who is wife of late Sube Singh.  Her husband had fallen ill and was taken in OP hospital on 13.03.2021 where he remained admitted till 20.03.2021 as indoor patient vide UHID No.4412, IPD No.1097.  According to complainant, he died on 20.03.2021 at about 11.20 A.M. during the course of treatment. According to her, OP had charged excessive amount to the tune of Rs.31,850/- at the rate of Rs.11050/- per day for 7 days instead of Rs.6500/- per day.  Death summary had been prepared by the OP and intimation report for registration of death. OP had reported the date of death as 22.03.2021 in intimation form whereas death had  occurred on 20.03.2021. Due to this wrong information, death of complainant’s husband was recorded as 22.03.2021 in death register maintained by Municipal Corporation, Rohtak. The complainant came to know of this mistake upon which she preferred an application before M.C. Rohtak and also approached OP for issuance of death certificate again in this behalf.  Due to this negligence on the part of OP, complainant has suffered and also got harassed since her husband was pensioner. Her Family Pension on account of this negligence on the part of OP was unnecessarily delayed and she had suffered financial hardship.  Many costly medicines had been purchased during the course of treatment of the complainant’s husband.  On the date of his death, these medicines were usurped by the hospital staff dishonestly but on asking no satisfactory answer could be furnished.   The complainant had approached OP for adequate compensation on account of negligence shown by them but her request had fallen on deaf ears.  The complainant had also issued legal notice through her lawyer by registered post whereupon she demanded sum of Rs.31850/- excessively charged by the OP and also compensation of Rs.80,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment. However, no compensation was given to complainant. Complainant has prayed  for payment of Rs.31850/-, compensation of Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum  and also sum of Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation.  Complaint is supported with affidavit.

2.                     Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP through registered post. Service was presumed to be effected since registered cover was not received back despite lapse of 30 days. Consequently, OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.02.2022.

3.                     Complainant in order to buttress her complaint filed affidavit Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-16.

4.                     We have heard learned  counsel for complainant and gone through the case file.

5.                     It is pertinent to mention here that since OP was proceeded against exparte, therefore, there is nothing on record to rebut the evidence produced by complainant.  For this reason, we are inclined to believe and attach credence to the evidence so produced on record.

6.                     We have perused the affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A.  She has reiterated entire contents of the complaint. She maintained that her husband Sube Singh was admitted in the OP hospital on 13.03.2021 and remained there till 20.03.2021, on which date he expired at about 11.30 A.M. during the course of treatment. This fact is amply proved on record by Annexure C-3 which is case summary prepared by the doctor concerned of the OP hospital.  Further, perusal of Annexure C-4 which is death summary of Sube Singh shows that he expired on 20.03.2021. 

7.                     Perusal of this document shows that Sube Singh was not admitted in ICU with ventilator as mentioned in the bill Annexure C-2.  This is precise case of complainant that her husband was charged exorbitantly to the tune of Rs.77350/- at the rate of Rs.11050/- for ICU with ventilator whereas in fact he was never admitted and remained admitted in O2+BIPAP support. Sum of Rs.6500/- should have been charged for admission whereas sum of Rs.11050/- was charged.  In this context, we are inclined to attach credence to the pleadings of complainant and her affidavit Annexure CW1/A since there is nothing on record to rebut the pleadings and the evidence furnished by the complainant. Consequently, we are inclined to believe the version of the complainant that sum of Rs.6500/- should have been charged from her husband instead of Rs.11050/-

8.                     Further the case of complainant is that the date of death of her husband was wrongly reported as 22.03.2021 instead of 20.03.201. In this behalf, we may refer Annexure C-8 (Death certificate) wherein death of Sube Singh has been referred as 22.03.2021.  Similarly, perusal of Annexure C-1 also shows the date of death of Sube Singh has been mentioned as 22.03.2021.  Annexure C-12 is a medical certificate Medical Certificate of cause of death purported to have been issued at the instance of OP hospital. The date of death in this document is 22.03.2021.

9.                     The version of complainant that the date of death was wrongly mentioned as 22.03.2021. In view of the aforesaid documents i.e. Annexure C-11 and C-12 appears to be true.  There is overwriting on the Annexure C-10 which is an extract of some record of OP wherein there is overwriting at serial no.65 regarding date of death of Sube Singh wherein death is referred on 20.03.2021. It appears to us that the date of death 20.03.2021 has come into being after overwriting.  Therefore, we find force in the submission of learned counsel for complainant there is wrong mention of the date of death of complainant’s husband. Her family pension case was delayed and due to this, she suffered financial loss.  In our considered opinion, duty was enjoin upon  OP  to work and perform its duty  in meticulous manner with care and caution in order to avoid any harassment to its esteem customers such as complainant’s husband.  We have no hesitation to conclude that the services rendered by the OP were found deficient and due to this, complainant being legal heir of her late husband became victim. 

10.                   Keeping in view of entire gamut of circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met in case OP are directed to reimburse Rs.31,850/- excessively charged by them on account of treatment of husband of complainant. Further, she is also entitled to Rs.15,000/- as compensation since she has suffered considerably on account of wrong mentioning of date of death of her late husband Sube Singh as well as litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following direction within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order:-

(i)        To pay Rs.31,850/-  (Rs. Thirty one thousand eight hundred fifty) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of complainant’s husband Sube Singh i.e. 20.03.2021 till the date of actual realization. In case of default, the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till the date of actual realization.

(ii)       To pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand) as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.11000/- (Rs. Eleven thousand) as litigation expenses.

                        Certified copies of the order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, on usual terms. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced on:03.08.2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

CC No.623 of 2021

Present:          Sh. Surender Khatkar, learned counsel for complainant.

                        OP exparte vide order dated 03.02.2022.

                        Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint has been allowed.  File after due compliance be consigned to the records.

Dated:            03.08.2022                Member         Member                     President

                                                                                                            DCDRC, Jind.