Date of filing: 31/05/2019                                                    

Date of Judgment: 21/2/2023

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

The complainant is filed by Sri Debesh Kumar Roy under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party (referred as OP hereinafter) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

Case of the complainant in short is that his mother Ishani Roy, a member of West Bengal Health Scheme was admitted at O.P. hospital on 22.01.2017 and expired on 10.04.2017. All bills for WBHS empanelled patients should be done according to WBHS rule. On a careful review of bills raised by the O.P., lots of irregularities were found. O.P. has extra charged Rs. 1,70,038/- towards consultation fee of Doctors / Specialist, charges for NIMBUS (air mattress) violating WBHS rule. So the present complaint has been filed praying for directing the O.P. to return Rs. 1,70,038/- i.e. extra amount charged along with interest @ 8% p.a., to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost

O.P has contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing the allegations contending inter-alia that matter relating to pricing is beyond the purview of the consumer protection Act. It is further contended that complainant paid the entire cost of treatment of the patient to O.P. without raising any protest thereof and never lodged nay complaint. Present complaint is simply product of afterthought with ulterior intent for illegal gain. So O.P has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

During the course of trial, both parties filed their respective examination-in-chief followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto and ultimately case has been fixed for argument. However record discloses that the complainant stopped taking any step at the stage when the case was fixed for filing of reply by the O.P. against the questionnaire filed by the complainant. He neither filed any written argument nor appeared to argue the matter. However brief notes of argument has been filed by the O.P.

So only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASON

At the very outset it may be pointed out that the case of the complainant is entirely based on two notification issued by the Government of West Bengal dated 13.01.2011 and 16.12.2011. Complainant has claimed that Dr. S.G. Sodi the treating doctor of his mother is not a D.M. qualified doctor but O.P. has charged his consultation fee Rs. 250/- instead of Rs. 200/- but complainant has not filed any prescription or document with regard to the qualification of the said treating doctor whether he is MD or DM qualified doctor. Complainant has only filed medical bills in bulk without highlighting those extra charges when taken. These bills also do not disclose the qualification of said treating doctor. Mere filing of bills in bulk by itself cannot be sufficient to establish the alleged claim of extra charge. Complainant has to specifically point out those extra charges allegedly taken by O.P.  It is also evident from the own case of the complainant that his mother died on 10.04.2017 but the present complaint has been filed on 31.05.2019 which is apparently after statutory period of limitation of two years. However even considering that a letter was sent by the complainant to O.P. on 07.06.2017 and from the said date of letter, complaint is filed within two years than also question arises as to why complainant did not raise any protest immediately after the final bills were raised i.e. on 10.04.2017. No explanation is forthcoming. Apart from this, complainant claimed amount towards excess charge in the notice dated 07.06.2017 Rs. 1,51,320/- whereas in the present complaint, complainant has claimed the excess amount paid Rs, 1,70,038.- which indicates complainant himself is not sure whether those amount claimed by him at all against the guidelines.

Now coming to the notification dated 31.01.2011 referred by the complainant, it specifies that Recognised Private Hospital / Diagnostic Centres have to enter into an agreement with the WBHS authority for providing services at their notified rates or scheduled rates approved by the Government, whichever is less. The revised rates may be applicable to the recognised private hospitals / diagnostic centres which are already rendering services to the beneficiaries under the Health Scheme on the basis of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) subject to the condition that the Health Care Organisation Authorities agree to accept the rates, terms and guidelines fully. A declaration to the effect of acceptance of revised rate list is to be furnished.

So prior to application of the rates as specified in the notification a memorandum of agreement was to be entered into and a declaration was to be executed. But before this commission no such document is filed. Neither there is any mention either in the complaint or during evidence of the complainant that such MOA was entered into or any declaration of acceptance was given by O.P. It is settled principles of law that party seeking the reliefs has to establish its case on the basis of evidence and thus it cannot be presumed that there was MOA and the declaration of acceptance. So in view of the discussions as highlighted above, complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

Hence,

           ORDERED

CC/261/2019 is dismissed on contest without cost.