BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                               : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 315/2021 Filed on 23/10/2021

ORDER DATED: 28/02/2023

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:
2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party.  The said notice was accepted by the opposite party.  After accepting the notice, the opposite party failed to appear before this Commission and hence on 30/06/2022, the opposite party was declared ex parte.
3. The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant was admitted in the opposite party’s hospital on 21/04/2021 due to Covid positive, and was discharged on 02/05/2021 the complainant was shifted to the room No.509 only on 23/04/2021.  The complainant alleges that though he was shifted to the room only on 23/04/2021, the opposite party collected rent for the said room from 21/04/2021 itself.  Meanwhile on 26/04/2021 the complainant’s wife Suvarna Kumari was also admitted to the opposite party’s hospital and she was also occupying the same room i.e., room No.509 allotted to the complainant.  When the complainant was discharged the entire room rent was paid to the opposite party.  Though the complainant’s wife also occupied the very same room, rent was collected from wife also.  The opposite party collected R.81,830/- from the complainant at the time of discharge.  Likewise sum of Rs.69,794/- was collected from the complainant’s wife by the opposite party.  According to the complainant the opposite party has collected Rs.31,500/- in excess from the complainant and his wife.  Hence the complainant alleges that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service form the side of the opposite party.
4. Evidence in this case consists of the PW1 and EXt.A1 to A10 from the side of the complainant.  The opposite party being declared ex parte, there is no oral or documentary evidence from side of the opposite party. 
5. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

               on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
3.  
4. Order as to cost?

6. Heard.  Perused affidavit, records and documents.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A10 were produced and marked.  Ext.A1 is the copy of discharge summery dated 02/05/2021.  Ext.A2 is the copy of IP Final/Discharge Statement dated 02/05/2021.  Ext.A3 is the copy of bill details.  Ext.A4 is the copy of letter to the opposite party from the complainant.  Ext.A5 series are the copy of Star Health insurance details.  Ext.A5(a) is the copy of Star Health insurance details.  Ext.A6 is the copy of discharge summery dated 08/05/2021.  Ext.A7 is the copy of IP Final/Discharge Statement dated 08/05/2021.  Ext.A8 is the copy of letter to the opposite party from the complainant. Ext.A9 series are the copy of the Star Health insurance details.  Ext.A9 (a) is the copy of the Star Health insurance details.  Ext.A10 is the copy of star health insurance family health optima insurance plan.  The opposite party being declared ex parte, there is no oral or documentary evidence to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant.  In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant.  By swearing an affidavit as PW1, and by marking Ext.A1 to A10, we find that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party.  We further find that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  As the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained by the complainant.     

                        In view of the above discussion we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.  

In the result the complaint is allowed.The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.31,500/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Only) along with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry interest @9% from the date of order till the date of realization/remittance.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 28^th day of February,  2023.

C.C. No. 315/2021

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT