DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No./82/2022
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
29.03.2022 01.04.2022 27.03.2024
Complainant/s:- | Smt. Mithu Sarkar, W/o. Sri Sushanta Das, Village- Taki, Uttar Rati Para, P.O. Taki, P.S. Hasnabad, Pin-743429, Dist- 24 Parganas North. -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | 1.Dr. Kaushik Prasanna Mukherjee, Vill + P.O. Gobardanga, Kalibari, Dist- 24 Parganas North, Pin-743252. 2.Dr. Sibani Bandyopadhyay, BA 16/A, Sector -1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. 3.The Chief Executive Officer, Swasti, Eye & Super Speciality Nursing Home, AA-2/2, Rajarhat Road, Taltala, P.S. Baguiati, Kolkata-700059. 4.The Manager, Heritage Health Insurance TPA PVT. LTD, Nicco House, 5th Floor, 2, Hare Street, Kolkata-700001. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint under Section 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 against the opposite parties praying for direction to provide break up bill in respect of the amount paid by the complainant, direction to O.P. No.46 to disburse claim amount in favour of the complainant.
Compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-, litigation cost amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and further reliefs.
He alleged that he purchased one insurance policy from O.P. No.4 and during the validity period she continued her treatment under O.P. Nos. 1-3 and paid Rs. 50,000/- as package amount for 6the said treatment. After completion of treatment he paid Rs. 65,000/- though O.P. Nos. 1-3 were agreed to complete the treatment i.e. delivery of the complainant on 04.02.2020 complainant was discharged on 08.04.2020 but at the time of discharge from the O.P.No.3, accounts department of O.P. No.3 did not provide break up bill in respect of the aforesaid treatment and payment by the complainant. Complainant on repeated occasions requested the O.P. Nos. 1-3 to provide break up bill but they did not issue the same. As complainant could not produce the break up bill O.P.No.4 did not disburse the claim amount. Hence the complainant filed this case praying for aforesaid reliefs.
O.P. No.1 appeared in the record and denying allegation and W.V made in the petition and contended that O.P. No.1 to their best ability and sincerely have extended their all corrections and assistance to the complainant during her treatment and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. He prayed for dismissal of the case.
O.P. No.2 filed a separate W.V. and amount denied the entire allegation made in the petition of complaint and further contended that there is no deficiency from their part. He prayed for dismissal of the case.
Contd/-2
C.C. No./82/2022
:: 2 ::
Trial
During trial complainant filed a petition praying for treating the petition of complaint the petition of complaint as affidavit-in-chief on 04.11.2022 and that has been allowed.
O.P. No.1 filed a separate affidavit-in-chief.
O.P. No.2 also filed a separate affidavit-in-chief.
Complainant filed questionnaire.
O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 filed joint reply.
Documents
- Copy of certificate issued by O.P. No.2 dated 01.04.2020……..one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of discharge certificate dated 08.04.2020 …..one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of bill dated 03.03.2020 …..One sheet Xerox.
- Copy of letter of Indian Bank dated 10.08.2020……One sheet Xerox.
- Copy of letter of complainant’s husband ………One sheet Xerox.
- Copy of claim form submitted by complainant’s husband ……Two sheets Xerox.
- Copy of Health Card of complainant’s husband ……….one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of prescription dated 01.04.2020………..two sheets Xerox.
- Copy of USG report………..two sheets Xerox.
- Copy of prescription dated 12.03.2020 ……….one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of advice issued by New Barrackpore Nursing Home and infertility clinic dated 23.02.2020 ……..One sheet Xerox.
- Copy of prescription dated 06.08.2020 ……..two sheets Xerox.
- Copy of pregnancy follow up ……two sheets Xerox.
- Copy of prescription ……two sheets Xerox.
- Copy of treatment ship ……. two sheets Xerox.
- Copy of report dated 16.12.2019……..two sheets Xerox.
- Copy of prescription ……..one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of medicine bills………two sheets Xerox.
- Copy of medical bill ……..one sheet Xerox.
- Copy of final reminder issued by O.P. No.4. Three sheets Xerox.
- Copy of Advocates letter dated 17.02.2022 …….two sheets Xerox.
- Copy of Advocates report ………one sheet Xerox.
- copy of advocates letter dated 26.10.2021 ………. three sheets Xerox.
- Copy of tag report ……..two sheets Xerox.
Decision with Reason
We have carefully gone through the aforesaid documents. We have also heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant and Ld. Advocate for the O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 at length.
We have carefully considered the aforesaid documents.
It is the main grievance of the complainant that she continued her treatment under O.P. No.3 with care and treatment of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and relating to his treatment she paid Rs. 65,000/- though O.P. Nos. 1 -3 stated that treatment will be competed with an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Complainant produced some vouchers in support of his contention. But O.P. Nos. 1-3 did not issue any voucher relating to their service charge.
Contd/-3
C.C. No./82/2022
:: 3 ::
At the time of hearing argument Ld. Advocate for the O.P.No.1-2 argued that they gave treatment to the complainant under the package system so they are not bound to give any break up figure relating treatment of the complainant and they are not bound to issue any vouchers relating to treatment of the complainant.
In reply Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued before this commission that there is no provision in any act and rules that O.P. Nos. 1-3 have no liability to issue any voucher/ money receipt relating to treatment rendered by them after taking money.
It is settled principle of law that every Nursing Home is bound to issue money receipt after taking money relating to treatment of any patient.
In the present case we find from the contention of the complainant that they paid Rs. 65,000/- in favour of the O.P. Nos. 1-3 but she could not produce any money receipt because O.P. Nos.1-3 not yet issued the same in favour of the complainant.
In view of aforesaid discussion we have no hesitation to say that the aforesaid argument as confessed by the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are not acceptable in the eye of law.
On perusal of record we find that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite parties are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that the complainant has able to establish his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and she is entitled to relief as per his prayer.
In the result, the present case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. Nos. 1-2 and allowed exparte against the O.P. Nos.3 and 4 with cost of Rs.. 5,000/- to be paid by O.Ps in equal share in favour of the complainant.
O.P.Nos.1-3 are directed to issue separate money receipt for separate service charge and cost of treatment in respect of the amount which they took from the complainant positively within 45 days from this day failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Liberty is given to the complainant to submit the aforesaid break up bills before the O.P. No.4 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the same and O.P. No.4 is directed to consider the same within next 30 days, failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.P. Nos.1-3 jointly or severally is directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the complainant for his harassment within 45 days from this day failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
