Haryana

Kurukshetra

165/2017

Amit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aggarwal Nursing Home - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Kumar

04 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.165 of 2017.

Date of instt.:10.8.2017. 

Date of Decision:04.11.2019.

 

Amit Kumar s/o Shri Geeta Ram, resident of village and Post Office Yara, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                                          Versus

 

1. Aggarwal Nursing Home, Multi Specialty Hospital, Salarpur Road Kurukshetra through Dr. Ajay Aggarwal M.D. (Med.).
2. Dr. Ajay Aggarwal M.D. (Med.), Aggarwal Nursing Home, Multi Specialty Hospital, Salarpur Road, Kurukshetra.

 

        .………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.                                               

Present:     Shri Ram Kumar Verma, Advocate for the complainant.  

 Shri Rajan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite parties.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Amit Kumar against Aggarwal Nursing Home and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant approached the OPs for inserting the cardiac stent and the OPs told him that total expenses for the same will be charged to the tune of Rs.50,000/- including costs of cardiac stent of Rs.30,000/-. That the complainant got inserted the stent from the OPs and admitted for the said treatment on 19.2.2017 and discharged on 22.2.2017. The OPs have charged a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- from the complainant vide bill dated 22.2.2017 illegally, as price of the stent is Rs.30,000/-, therefore, the expenses on its insertion cannot be more than 15-20 thousands, but OPs charged a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-. It is further averred that alleged stent which has been used by the OPs was not having any date, month and year of manufacturing and expiry date, batch number and in this way there is great danger to the life of complainant. He requested the OPs to return the excess amount of Rs.85,000/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for harassment etc., but to no effect. That complainant also served legal notice dated 16.6.2017 to the OPs in this regard but the OPs did not give any reply. Hence, this complaint.  

3.             On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties, locus standi; estoppal and concealment of true and material facts. It is submitted that complainant was brought to the hospital of the OPs on 19.2.2017 with a complaint of chest and back pain of left side. ECG, Echo was conducted and found that there is anterio-lateral wall MI (heart problem). That due to serious heart problem, the condition and the further treatment and expenses on treatment was explained to the relatives of complainant and after getting the consent of close relative of complainant Ms. Jyoti, the angiography was conducted and the stent was inserted. The OPs discharged the complainant in a satisfactory condition and proper bill. The allegation leveled by the complainant against OPs are false, because OPs charged Rs.30,000/- for the cost of implant/ stent, the remaining charges is for angiography, procedure and for medicines. It is further submitted that OPs gave a discount of Rs.12,278/- against the total bill of Rs.1,47,277.84 to the complainant as gesture of goodwill. It is further submitted that complainant also filed a complaint against the OPs before the NPPA and the same was filed by the competent authority after the detail enquiry. The OP No.2 is a qualified M.B.B.S., M.D. physician working with OP No.1, well reputed hospital in the area and both having good reputation in the medical profession. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             In support to his contention, the complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-15 and closed the evidence

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He argued that the complainant approached the OPs for inserting the cardiac stent and the OPs told him that total expenses for the same will be Rs.50,000/- including costs of cardiac stent of Rs.30,000/-. The complainant got inserted the stent from the OPs, who charged a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- from the complainant illegally, as price of the stent is Rs.30,000/-. This way, the OPs are deficient.

7.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OPs has also reiterated all the contents mentioned in the reply. He argued that the complainant was brought to the hospital of the OPs on 19.2.2017 with a complaint of chest and back pain of left side and due to serious heart problem, further treatment and expenses on treatment was explained to the relatives of complainant and after getting the consent of close relative of complainant Ms. Jyoti, the angiography was conducted and the stent was inserted. He further argued that the OPs gave a discount of Rs.12,278/- against the total bill of Rs.1,47,277.84 to the complainant as gesture of goodwill. He further argued that the OP No.2 is a qualified M.B.B.S., M.D. physician working with OP No.1, well reputed hospital in the area and both having good reputation in the medical profession.

8.             On appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, we found that the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have assured that the total expenses for asserting the cardiac stent would be Rs.50,000/- including costs of cardiac stent of Rs.30,000/-, whereas, they charged Rs.1,35,000/-, as such, they charged excess amount of Rs.85,000/-. On the other hand, the OPs have contended that the complainant was admitted in the hospital of OPs in serious and after getting the consent of close relative of complainant Ms. Jyoti, the angiography was conducted and the stent was inserted. In this regard, the OPs relied upon Emergency Certificate Ex.R2. From the perusal of said document Ex.R-2, it is clear that the complainant was admitted in emergency on 19.2.2017 with Anteriolateral Wall MI and diagnosed for SVD of LAD and primary PCI to LAD done with DES. The OPs further produced Progress Sheet Ex.R-5 written by one Jyoti (relative of the complainant), wherein, she mentioned that their patient (complainant) was brought to the OPs hospital with major heart attack and there was danger to his life. She further mentioned that there is need for emergency angiography and stent, which costing about Rs.1,50,000/- and she gave her consent for the same. Meaning thereby, the complainant/his relative was fully aware that the cost of angiography and stent would be about Rs.1,50,000/- and by accepting the same, the complainant got inserted the cardiac stent from the OPs. Moreover, the complainant has also failed to produce any agreement/document showing that the OPs assured that they would charge Rs.50,000/- for the said surgery. However, in IPD Bill receipt Ex.R9, the cost of implant stunt is clearly mentioned as Rs.30,000/-. So, the contention of the complainant that the OPs assured that the cost for inserting the cardiac stent would be Rs.50,000/-, has no force. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his contentions. Hence, we found no deficiency on the part of the OPs in providing the services.

9.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed against the OPs with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:04.11.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        Pres`ident.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.