Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/216

Arun Kumar Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bassi Nursing Home Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar

19 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 216 dated  05.10.2020.      

                                                Date of decision: 19.12.2022. 

 

Arun Kumar Ahuja aged about 38 years son of Sh. Vimal Kumar, resident of B-34-9122/1A, Street No.1, Joshi Nagar, Baddi Haibowal, Ludhiana (M) 82888097373.                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Bassi Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd., Rajpura Road, Near Dhobi Ghat, Opposite OBC Bank, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through its Director.
2. Dr J.L. Bassi owner and director of Bassi Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd., Rajpura Road, Near Dhobi Ghat, Opposite OBC Bank, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
3. Dr. Schumailla Bassi C/o. Bassi Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd., Rajpura Road, Near Dhobi Ghat, Opposite OBC Bank, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.                                                                                               …..Opposite parties 

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

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Arun Kumar Ahuja in person.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Jatinderdeep Singh Dua, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of the unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the wife of the complainant namely Namita Ahuja having patient UHID No.201904156 with the opposite party Hospital  remained under the treatment from April 2019 to November 2019, the treatment was supervised by opposite party No.3. The complainant spent about Rs.80,000/- upon the treatment of his wife. In the last week of May2019, opposite party No.3 advised the complainant for the NIPT test (Non-Invasive Prenatal Test) which was to be got conducted through  Lab MEDGENOME. As per the directions of opposite party No.3, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 31.05.2019 through his City  Bank Credit Card in the account of opposite party No.1. On the same day, the representative of said MEDGENOME lab took samples. The complainant requested opposite party No.3 to issue a valid receipt of Rs.30,000/- paid by the complainant but opposite party No.3 assured the complainant that the receipt would be issued later on. Since the complainant has blind faith on opposite party No.3 and his wife was also undergoing treatment so the complainant relied upon the assurance of opposite partyNo.3 and did not take a valid receipt at that time. After the birth of the child, the complainant again demanded receipt of Rs.30,000/- from the opposite parties as the complainant wanted reimbursement from his insurance company but the opposite parties kept the matter pending on one pretext or the other. In the meantime in March 2020, lockdown was imposed due to pandemic of COVID-19. The complainant directly approached the MADGENOME Lab Limited for issuance of receipt and they issued a valid receipt to the complainant vide invoice No.20/H4335/67071 amounting to Rs.14,000/- only. The complainant again approached the opposite parties and sought clarification of amount paid and told them that they had charged Rs.16,000/- in excess of the cost of the test charged by the lab but the opposite parties did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The complainant had been repeatedly requesting the opposite parties to refund the amount but they had refused. The complainant also issued a legal notice dated 04.09.2020 upon the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.16,000/- and to pay compensation and litigation expenses but the opposite parties did not respond to the legal notice. This act of the opposite parties have caused mental agony, harassment and torture to the complainant. Hence the present complaint whereby the complainant sought direction to the opposite parties to refund amount of Rs.16,000/- paid in excess by the complainant to the opposite parties along with compensation of Rs.70,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement. In preliminary submissions, it was stated that the NIPT is a pre natal test and is sometimes called the Non Invasive Prenatal Screen (NIPS). In pregnancy, this is an elective test and is used to help identify if the baby is at risk of genetic abnormalities, such as chromosomal disorders. NIPT is a screening test and not a diagnostic test meaning thereby that it can’t diagnose a genetic condition with certainty. It can, however, predict whether the risk of a genetic condition is high or low. The NIPT test cannot be done straight away rather has a complete medical package wherein pre-test counseling is provided to the patient before undergoing the test and also other allied healthcare services are provided. The staffs of the testing labs are stationed in the opposite party No.1 healthcare centre and the collection and processing of sample is done completely with them. As such, the price of the test itself is only a component of the complete package of the NIPT.

                   On merits, it was submitted that the patient Namita Ahuja was admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital from 29.11.2019 to 02.12.2019 for 36 weeks of pregnancy in the latent phase of labour. The other family members of the complainant also used t take treatment and avail OPD services of the opposite parties. It has been submitted that the annexure submitted by the complainant mentions only the testing charges. Moreover, there are many procedures involved in the testing of a sample other than testing charges and the testing charges are just one part of the package there are other services also included in the package of a test such as lab collection, related counseling medical services, related courier in transportation and logistics charges etc. Even the complainant has admitted that the sample was taken by the representative of Medgenome lab from the hospital. Before such test is done, counseling of the mother is of the outmost necessity and as such, the amount of Rs.30,000/- charged from the complainant including the other services. The complainant selected the package of Panoramic NIPT testing and this package costs more for which a receipt was duly issued to the complainant on 5^th September (Ann. R2). Also it was stated that Lab Medgenome is a necessary party. The opposite parties have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint being frivolous.

3.                 The complainant filed replication to the written statement denying the allegations of the written statement with regard to package of NIPT and reiterated the allegations made in the complaint.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record receipt dated 05.06.2019 issued by MEDGENOME lab for Rs.14,000/-, Ex. C2 is the report of NIPT test dated 10.06.2019, Ex. C3 is the statement of Citi Bank, Ex. C4 is letter written by complainant to the opposite party No.3, Ex. C5 is the postal receipt, Ex. C6 is the copy of email sent by complainant, Ex. C7 is the legal notice dated 04.09.2020, Ex. C8 to Ex. C10 are the postal receipts and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of opposite party No.3 Dr. Schumailla Bassi along with documents Annexure- R1 letter of authorization, Annexure- R2 receipt dated 05.09.2020 issued by the opposite parties and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

7.                We have examined the assertions of the complainant which are of twofold, one pertains to the non-supplying of the receipt and other is charging of an excess amount of Rs.16,000/- and refund thereof. It is uncontroverted that the wife of the complainant Namita Ahuja remained under treatment under supervision of opposite party No.3 who during the treatment advised NIPT test. A sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid by the complainant and received by opposite party No.1. It is also evident from the chronology of events that the complainant had been demanding the receipt of the payment from the opposite parties but they were evasive and did not provide the receipt to the complainant. So there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties by not providing the receipt.

8.                The second aspect deals with the refund of Rs.16,000/-. The opposite parties have not denied the receipt of payment of Rs.30,000/- but in their written reply and affidavit, the opposite parties have added that the complainant had selected the package of NIPT testing which includes counseling and services like lab collection, related counseling medical services, related courier in transportation and logistics charges etc. As such, the amount of Rs.30,000/- was rightly charged from the complainant. The contentions of the opposite parties is not tenable because at the time of advising the test, the complainant was not made aware of any such additional charges which are likely to be levied on or above the actual testing charges. It infringes the right to be informed of the complainant. The opposite parties have not referred any brochure or price list of the laboratory which prescribes or stipulates such facilitation charges. As such, the opposite parties have charged Rs.16,000/- in excess and are liable to refund the same to the complainant.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.16,000/- to the complainant with interest @8% per annum from 31.05.2019 till date of actual payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

Arun Kumar Ahuja Vs Bassi Nursing Home                                      CC/20/216

Present:       Complainant Sh. Arun Kumar Ahuja in person.

                   Sh. Jatinderdeep Singh Dua, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.16,000/- to the complainant with interest @8% per annum from 31.05.2019 till date of actual payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:19.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.