Date of filing :20.6.2017

Judgment : Dt.13.3.2018

Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member

            This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of   C.P.Act, 1986 by Nilanjan Chaudhury alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party (Referred as OP hereinafter) B. M. Birla Heart Research Centre.

            Case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant had his Angeogram done at OP Research Centre on 15.11.2016 and Dr.T. K. Praharaj of OP Research Centre advised him to undergo an early coronary artery by-pass (CABC) as per advice of Dr. T. K. Praharaj agreed to undergo the same and accordingly paid Rs.2,09,000/- on 18.11.2016 as an estimated package of by-pass operation for eight days which was started on and from 16.11.2016. The Complainant has further stated that on 16.11.2016 and 17.11.2016 some post-operative investigations were done and, ultimately, on 18.11.2016 a surgical operation, namely by-pass surgery was done upon him by Dr. M. K. Daga and he was discharged from the Hospital on 23.11.2016. It is specific allegation of the Complainant that though he had availed an estimated package for by-pass surgery an extra amount of Rs.17,800/- (Rs.13,500/- + Rs.4,000/-) had been charged by the Research Centre in addition to the package expenditure for doctors charge and accommodation charge for 16.11.2016 and 17.11.2016. The Complainant by filing this complaint prayed for a direction upon the OP to return Rs.17,800/- excess amount charged by OP with interest @18%p.a. and to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

            The OP contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the material allegation made out in the petition of complaint stated inter alia, that the complainant was shifted to CCU after Angeogram had been done and the Complainant had to stay there from 16.11.2016 to 17.11.2016 before surgery since he had been diagnosed with triple vessel disease Class III Angina and charge for such accommodation in CCU before surgery was not inclusive in the surgery package which would have been evident had the Complainant filed the entire set of bills. Accordingly, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

            Both the parties filed affidavit-in-chief followed by cross examination in the form of questionnaire and reply thereto.

            The Complainant have annexed photocopies of report of catheterization and coronary angiography, estimated expenditure of surgery, operation note dt.18.11.2016, discharge summary dt.23.11.2016, bill details dt.23.11.2016, Clinical Investigation report and other documents regarding correspondences made by the Complainant to the B M Birla Hospital and Consumer Affairs Department to the Government of West Bengal.

            In course of argument the Complainant stated that he had opted for a eight day surgery package and got admitted at the OP Hospital on 16.11.2016 and got discharged therefrom on 23.11.2016 but the OP hospital had charged extra amount of Rs.17,800/- in addition to the package expenditure though the Complainant stayed there for eight days. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP stated that the Complainant had to stay at  CCU and the charges for accommodation at CCU along with Doctor’s fees had not been included in the package expenditure for surgery of CABG.

            Main point for determination whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for

Decision with reasons

            The Complainant claimed to have availed facility of package treatment offered by the OP hospital. The Complainant further claimed that he received treatment as per terms of the given facility under the said package and according to him consideration amount of the said treatment should have been within the limit of declared terms of the said package. The Complainant in support of such contention has filed documents, such as Photocopies of estimated expenditure, operation note, discharge summary and all these documents support such averment of the Complainant. The Complainant has alleged that though the said course of treatment has been completed within the estimated time limit as given by the OP but they have charged excess amount of Rs.17,800/-. In support of such contention, the Complainant has filed copies of bill generated by the OP hospital. However, in course of argument the Complainant was asked to produce all bills in original but he said that he had deposited all the bills in original with the Insurance Company for reimbursement of his insurance claim. It is observed that the Complainant did not mention anything regarding the Insurance Policy availed by him. Therefore, it is not possible for us to determine that how much he got towards settlement of Insurance claim so that we may award an amount in favour of him.

            Being unaware of the reimbursed amount by the Insurer if any amount is awarded in favour of the Complainant that is likely to bring two fold benefit for him which is not permissible under law.

            In such view of the matter, we are of opinion that no relief can be granted in favour of the Complainant.

            In the result, the Consumer Complaint does not succeed.

            Hence,

ordered

            That CC/332/2017 is dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost.