DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII (SW)

[GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI]

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SHAKAR BHAWAN

Date of Institution: 20.02.2020

Date of Order : 17.03.2023

CASE NO. CC/63/20

In the matter of:-

Jaswant Singh

S/o Lt Sh. Mehar Singh,

R/o Flat 77-B, Shree Radha Apartment,

Plot 3, Sector 9,

Dwarka,

Delhi-110075.                                                      ….           Complainant.

VERSUS

Director, Manipal Hospital,

Sector 6, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075.                                              ….                   Opposite Party

O R D E R

(By SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, PRESIDENT)

1. The facts of the case are like this. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that he is a pensioner and CGHS Card holder. He is a heart patient. On 29.10.2018, he was admitted to Manipal Hospital, Dwarka (OP).  On 05.11.2018, he was discharged after the treatment from the Hospital and made a payment of Rs. 5.54,382/-. He has submitted the medical bills for reimbursement upon which CGHS officials asked for the original tax invoice for the purchase of pace maker along with warranty card and sticker.  The tax invoice was obtained by him and sent to CGHS.  The tax invoice was for a sum of Rs. 2,37,,501/- and not for the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-.  He has requested OP vide letter dated 07.08.2019 to refund a sum of Rs. 1,12,499/- i.e the excess amount charged by OP.  The billing section of OP through Sh. Yogesh Singh has promised to refund the amount within one week but in vain.  A legal notice dated 30.10.2019 was served upon OP to refund the excess amount of Rs. 1,12,499/- , which was replied by OP.  The OP has charged the access amount.  The same should be refunded to him.  The complaint is within limitation.  He has been duly harassed by the OP, so litigation charges and compensation for financial loss may also be awarded to him.
2. The OP has filed a reply wherein preliminary objections are taken to the effect that there is no deficiency in service as claimed by the complainant. The maximum retail price of the pacemaker was charged from the complainant.  The OP is society so human care medical charitable trust should have been impleded as party.  On merits, it is averred that total payment of Rs. 5,14,382/- including payment of 3,50,000/- of assurity MRI Pulse Generator was made by the complainant.  The price of pulse generator was charged as per prevalent market price.  The rate mentioned in tax invoice is for the hospital and not for the individual.  No excess amount was charged from the complainant.  There is no deficiency in the service, so the question of refund of any amount does not arise.
3. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein facts of the complaint are reiterated and denied the averments of written statement.
4.  Both the parties have led the evidence.  The complainant has filed his own affidavit wherein he has reiterated the averments of the complaint and filed the documents.  He has relied upon the documents exhibit CW1/1 to 5.
5.  The OP has filed the affidavit of Sh. Vimal Chibber i.e. Administrator of the OP and reaffirmed the averments of the written statement.
6. We have heard Ld Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. It is admitted fact that complainant has taken treatment from OP.  He has remained admitted to the hospital. He has made the payment of Rs. 5,14,382/- to OP for the treatment including the charges of Rs. 3,50,000/-  of Assurity MRI Pulse Generator which is evident from CW1/2.
7.  Ex CW1/4 is a tax invoice for Assurity for MRI Pulse Generator issued by Rhythm Medical Devices Pvt Ltd in favour of OP for a sum of Rs. 2,37,501/-.
8.  The OP has charged a sum of Rs 3,50,000/- alleging as per the market price of Assurity MRI Pulse Generator. The tax invoice has been issued by Rhythm Medical Devices Pvt Ltd in favour of OP and not in favour of complainant.  The complainant has not led any iota of evidence to show that the maximum retail price of MRI Pulse Generator was less than the price charged by OP.  The complainant cannot insist that OP should charge the price for which the OP has purchased the MRI Pulse Generator.  There is no evidence that OP has assured the complainant to supply the said device for a sum less than 3,50,000/- or for a sum less than Rs. 2,37,501/-.
9.   The charging of maximum retail price of the device in no way comes within the ambit of unfair trade practices or deficiency in service.  The complainant has failed to bring any evidence on record to show that the OP has indulged in unfair trade practices by charging a sum of Rs 3,50,000/- for the device.  There is no evidence that there any deficiency in service.
10. There is no merit in the complaint and accordingly same is dismissed.  There is no order as to the cost.

Copy of the order be given Dasti free of cost to the party.

File be consigned to record room.