Sri. Apurba Kr. Ghosh ……...................President

The Complainant has filed this case under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. 2019 against the OP’s and praying for the following relief / orders:-

1. Direction against the O.P. to hand over a proper and detailed bill to the complainant.  
2. Direction against the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 65,000/- which was taken as excess amount to the complainant.  
3. Direction against the OP to pay 50,000/- for causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.  
4. Direction against the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for unfair trade practice towards the complainant.  
5. Direction against the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for legal expenses.
6. Any other relief/reliefs which the complainant is legally entitled to.

BRIEF FACT OF THE COMPLAINT

1. Complainant is a peace loving and law abiding citizen.
2. Complainant is a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. 2019.
3. The father of the complainant was admitted at the Nursing Home of the OP on 11.05.2021 at around 2 PM.
4. That the father of the complainant did not get any treatment from the OP and the complainant had informed the OP nursing home authority to give his father medicine prescribed by the previous doctor. But despite having no fever they gave the father of the complainant Parasitamol.
5. That when the complainant made a call to the Nursing Home at 6.30 am on the next day the OP Nursing Home had informed that there was no patient in the mane of Sri Basudev Bhowal.
6. That the complainant had witnessed that when his father was about to fall  from the bed there was no one from the end of the OP Nursing Home to support him and the complainant himself went there to rescue his father.
7. There was no isolation ward for Covid patients and all patients are attached closely to each other.
8. The Nursing Home had sent the complainant to bring Renmdesivir which could not be given to any patient party without nursing home authority and the OP nursing home had later admitted their fault.
9. That the complainant  was not worn Oxygen Max even for a minute and the most fearful incident was that OP nursing home wanted to make the complainant  believe if  he ask for discharge of his father that moment his father would no longer be with them.
10. That the OP nursing home had charged a sum of Rs. 90,000/- from the complainant and when the complainant wanted to know the billing amount details, the OP nursing home wrote the bill on a white page without mentioning any details.
11. When the complainant had agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/- only the OP nursing home they did not agreed with him and even did not let him or his father to go.
12. That the complainant had convinced the OP nursing home at Rs. 70,000/- only and that from the admission time that is the previous day 2 pm to the next 11 am the OP nursing home had charged an amount of Rs. 70,000/-.
13. That the complainant had approached the CA & FBP, Siliguri and when the Office of CA & FBP, Siliguri had contacted the OP nursing home over phone they denied all the allegations and told over the phone that in the name of Sri Basudev Bhowal, no patient had been admitted on that day.
14. That the complainant asked to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the OP for fake Covid test but he did not pay the amount as he discharged  his father from the OP nursing home at 11 am. Subsequently the OP nursing home agreed to return  the complainant  an amount of Rs.  15,000/- but they could not mention it on what basis they are willing to pay the amount.
15. Cause of action arose on 11.05.2021 when the complainant  had admitted his father to the OP nursing home which continues and there was  gross medical negligence form the part of the OP which then continued as on the next date the OP demanded an sum of Rs. 90,000/- only and ultimately settlement for an amount of Rs. 70,000/- for just 20 hours of admission which then continued as the complainant had approached to the CA & FBP, Siliguri and the same continued as on the 2^nd date of mediation the OP nursing home agreed to return an amount of Rs. 15,000/- only to the complainant and the same is continuing till today.

In support of the complaint the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1. Photocopy of  Bills (1-3)
2. Photocopy of Medical Documents (4-6)
3. Photocopy of Mediation Notice (7)
4. Photocopy of E-mail (8)

Notice was issued from this Commission for serving the same upon the OP. On receipt of notice the OP appears before this Commission through Vokalatnama, filed written version. In the written version (W/V) the OP has denied all the material allegations of the Complainant in the W/V the OP has statedthat the case is not maintainable against the OP/ There is no cause of action to filed this present case. The statement made in different paragraphs of the complaintwhich are not specifically admitted by the OP would be treated as denied by the OP. The OP has further stated in respect of statement made in Para No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 that the said statements are mater of record. And in respect of Paragraph No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the complaint petition the OP has stated that this statement are completely false and denied by the OP.

It is further stated in the W/V that the statement made in Para No. 13 to 14 of the complaint the OP stated that the OP are not aware with the said fact will not like to comment upon the same and the complainant is bound to prove this statements.

The OP has further stated in the W/V that the statement madein Para No. 15, 16, 17 & 18of the complaint petition that the said statement are within the special knowledge of the complainant and the OP is not a position to make any comment regarding the same.

Regarding Para No. 19 of the complaint petition the OP has stated that the said statement are partially true and the same is denied by the OP.

Statement made in Para No. 20 in the complaint petition the OP is no knowledge about the same which is within the special knowledge of the complainantand in Para no. 21 of the complaint petitionthe OP has statedthat the said statementare partially trueandpartially admitted by the OP.

The OP has further stated in the W/Vthat the CA & FBP, Siligurihad contacted the OP and stated that there has been a complaint against the OP nursing home and they will be issuing a notice against the OP.

In respect of Para No. 22 of the complaint petitionthe OP has stated that the statement is completely false and denied by the OP.

Statement made in Para No. 23 of the complaint petition the OP has stated it is true and correct and the OP has also stated that at the time of mediation the OP nursing home agreed to return an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant.

The statement made in Para no. 24 of the complaint petition OP has stated thatthere was no medical negligence, Misbehavior, Excess billing, Fake documents and denial to accept the Swastha Sathi Card.

In respect of Para no. 25 & 26 of the complaint petition it is stated that those are within the special knowledge of the complainant and the OP is not in a position to make any comment regarding the same.

In respect of Para No. 27, 28 & 29 of the complaint petition are matter of record.

By filing W/V OP is praying for dismissal of this case.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both sides and on careful perusal of complaint, W/V the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as per the provision of C.P. Act.?

2. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer under the provision of the C.P. Act.

3. Whether there is any cause of action to file this case by the Complainant?

4. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the Complainant?

5. Is the Complainant has able to prove this case and entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

                   DECISION WITH REASONS

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

          In order to prove the case the complainant  has filed an application for treating the complaint petition as their evidence. That the petition of complainant was allowed. And thereby the application of complainant which was filed by the complainant has been treated as their evidence. In order to prove the facts the complainant has filed  WNA.

At the time of Hearing of argument Ld. advocate of complainant argued that  the complainant has been able to prove the case against the OP nursing home to the effect that  there was deficiency in service on the part of the  OP and unfair trade practice when the OP nursing home charged a sum of Rs. 90,000/- but they did not submit that specific bills and prescription etc. in support of their demand. At the time of argument Ld. advocate of the complainant further argued that  to falsify the case  of the complainant the OP did not turned up before this Commission to challenge  the evidence of the complainant by putting questionnaires or through filing evidence as well as WNA.

Having heard Ld. advocate of complainant and on careful perusal of complaint petition as well as W/V including evidence of complainant as well as WNA of complainant it is admitted fact that the father of the complainant was admitted to the nursing of the OP. It is also admitted fact  that the father of the complainant was admitted  for 20 hours in the nursing home but the OP nursing home had charged  a sum of Rs. 90,000/- from the complainant.  It is further admitted  fact that  the OP did not submit any medical prescription as well as bills in respect of said charging of Rs. 90,000/-. From perusal of the evidence as well as WNA we are of the view that there was deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP nursing home who deliberately did not hand over the medical prescription as well as relevant medical documents to the complainant on its demand.

          Considering the unchallenged evidence of the complainant  and considering the documents  filed  by the complainant we are of the view that the complainant has been able to prove the case against the OP nursing home to the effect that there was deficiency of service on the part of the OP nursing home.

Hence, it is therefore,

O R D E R E D

That the instant Consumer case being in No. 30/2023 is hereby allowed on ex-party against the OP but in part.

The OP is directed to handover the detail bills to the complainant. OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant which was taken excess amount from the complainant.

OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for causing mental and physical harassment of complainant by the OP.

OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for cost of legal proceedings.

OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.