By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member The gist of the case is as follows: The complainant had a fall from bycycle on 19.6.2006 and sustained injury ( R ) leg knee. He was taken to primary Health Centre, Chennalode. The wound was dressed and first aid was given from there. Medicines and injections were also provided to him from the PHC. After two days because of intolerable pain, the complainant had gone to the 1st opposite parties hospital on 21.6.06. The 2nd opposite party examined the complainant, X-ray was taken and fracture was confirmed. The 2nd opposite party dressed the wound and asked the complainant to come after two days. After two days the 2nd opposite party put the supporting plaster and sent the complainant home on the same day with an advice to dress the wound twice a day. The complainant dressed the wound from his house till 5.7.2006. On 5.7.2006, he approached the opposite parties and was admitted there. The wound was not healed and there was intolerable pain. On 5.7.06 itself 2nd opposite party conducted operation and the complainant was treated till 15.7.2006. The service of the opposite parties were defective and not satisfactory. Excessive billing was made. Same item was billed under different heads ie. Medical care, nursing care, professional service charge, injunction charge, dressing charge, consulting charge etc. therefore there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and other costs. 2. The opposite party appeared and filed version. The 1st opposite party stats that proper treatment had been started immediately on the date of accident. The complainant consulted the 2nd opposite party only on 21.6.2006 with severe pain over right knee. The Xray revealed an undisplaced fracture of tibial tuberosity. The Doctor in the institution of the 1st opposite party has done all service, care and attention to the complainant to the maximum in time. The non-co-operation of the complainant alone caused problems to him. No excess bill is charged. The surgery charges including surgeon's fees, theater charges and anesthetic charges etc were only minimum. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint without any basis has caused heavy mental agony and it affected the institution's reputation. So the 1st opposite party prays for an order dismissing the complaint and allowing the opposite parties compensatory cost. The 2nd opposite party filed version and states that the nature of injury and the best modality of treatment were explained to the complainant. He was informed of the need to immobilise the knee joint by applying a plaster Paris slab(POP) test the undisplaced fracture would became a displaced one. Since there was a wound over the knee, the importance of hospitalisation and daily dressing was told to the complainant. Despite all the adv ice, the patient was not willing for hospitalisation or for applying a POP. However he came for review on 23.6.2006 complaining of severe pain over the right knee. The patient finally consented for applying the POP slab but was not willing for hospitalization for daily dressing. The reason sited was that his daughter was a nursing student and that she would do the daily dressing. The patient was advised to come for review on 30.6.2006. But he came only on 5.7.2006. The wound was infected and had developed. Hence he was admitted and an incision and Drainage (I &D) was done on the same day under short general anesthesia. The Pus was sent for culture and sensibility test. Daily dressing of the wound was done. But by 8.7.2006, the complainant was not willing for further hospitalization citing financial problems. He was thus discharged on 8.7.2006 against medical advice. The averment made by the complainant that the entire service rendered by the 2nd opposite party was defective and unsatisfactory is false. The 2nd opposite party has treated the complainant with atmost care and caution. All the requisite advice and reasons for each modality of treatment was explained to the complainant, but he was not ready to follow the instructions of 2nd opposite party. The compensation claimed under different heads are exaggerated and without any basis. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. So, the 2nd opposite party prays for the dismissal of the case with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- 2. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents were marked as Ext. A1 to A13 and a summoned document was marked as Ext. X1 on the side of the complainant. OPW1 was examined on the side of the opposite parties. 3. The points to be considered are as follows. 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? 2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief ? 4. Point No.1: The complainant's contention is that the entire approach and service of the opposite parties were defective and unsatisfactory. But the complainant has no case that the healing of wound was delayed or pain aggregated or the condition of the wound worsened because of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has not alleged any negligence in treatment of the opposite parties. But he has serious complaints about the billing of service rendered at opposite party's hospital. As per the complaint, same item is billed and charged under different heads. The Bill Ext. A 12 series show amounts charged under different heads such as medical care, Nursing care, operation ortho, operation theater charge, dressing charge, injection charge etc. On cross-examination, OPW1 could not explain or specify the items which are charged under these different headings. OPW1 also state that professional service charge include doctor's fee, nursing service. Nobody on opposite side appeared or gave explanation. The consumer was denied the right to know the purpose for which he has paid the money even after approaching the Forum. It is only imaginable what would be the approach of opposite parties if the consumer himself ask an explanation of the billing. It is true that there is no settled rate for hospital services like surgeries, OT charges etc. But in Ext.X1 the correction or over writing making 250 into 350 for OT charge and surgery on 5.7.2006 shows that the billing is somewhat speculative. It is noted that OT charge on 23.6.2006 is only 250. Surgery was on 5.7.06. But the 1st opposite party doctor has prescribed HIV and hepatites test on 7.7.2006. this is prescribed under special orders. OPW1 states that tests are prescribed before the surgery if the patient does not respond the treatment. The complaint has refused the tests and requested for discharge. He has complaint and suspecian about the motive of that prescription. Before the Forum also the opposite parties have not explained circumstances which necessitated such a prescription. The 2nd opposite party must have prescribed these expensive tests with an interest to benefit 1st opposite party. There was enough reason for the complainant to lose faith in the treatment of opposite parties. This made the complainant to quit the hospital and seek treatment elsewhere. So the point No.1 is found against the opposite parties. 5. Point No.2: It is found that there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and the complainant was put to inconvenience and difficulty because of this. So the complainant is entitled for compensation. But the compensation prayed for in the complaint is too high and has no justification. So the complainant is entitled for a nominal compensation ie. Rs.2,000/- and a cost of Rs. 1000/- Hence the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand only) as compensation and cost to the complainant jointly and severally within 30 days of this order. Pronounced in the open Forum on this the day of 29th September,2008. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: I Sd/- MEMBER: II Sd/- A P P E N D I X: Witness examined for complainant PW1 Philip P,D. Complainant Witness examined for opposite party OPW1 Dr. Sebastian Doctor Exhibits marked for complainant A1 Admission ticket A2 Discharge Certificate A3 Referred card A4 Discharge Card A5 Certificate issued by Dr. Sunil Menon A6 Medical Bills A7 Medical Bills A8 Medical Bills A9 Medical Bills A10 Medical Bills A11 Medical Bills A12 Medical Bills A13 X ray X1 Case sheet. Exhibits marked for opposite party: Nil
