BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Saturday the 30th day of August, 2008
C.C.No. 18/08
Between:
P.V.K.Sai Prasad, S/o. Late P. Ramachandra Rao, Inspector Prohibition and Excise, District Task Force,
R/o. Sankar Bagh, Kurnool.
… Complainant
Versus
Dr. Muralidhara Reddy, S/o. Not known, Kurnool Super Specialty Dental Hospital,
King Market Road, Kurnool
… Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Nirajn Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.S.Chand Basha, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Sri K. V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.18/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.,P Act seeking direction on the opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.4,000/- paid to the opposite party and interest at 18% interest p.a there on from 26-12-2007 and Rs.50,000/- for wrongful extraction of money under threat of in complete treatment and Rs.10,000/- as damages alleging of taking of
his son P. V. Srikanth to the opposite party on complaint of tooth ache on 7-12-2007 and the opposite party advising for x-ray , removal of two teeth and caping the broken tooth and charging Rs.4,000/- for said treatment and the payment of Rs. 2,000/- to opposite party from said agreed fees on 7-12-2007 and remaining after one weak after removal of another tooth and caping the broken tooth and payment by complainant of Rs.1,000/- to the opposite party on 17-12-2007 on removal of second tooth and the failure of the opposite party to complete the caping of tooth till 26-12-2007 inspite of their several visits by that time and on 26-12-2007 the opposite party demanding Rs.5,000/- for fixing the cap to the tooth and as the schedule living of complainants son to America being on 27-12-2007 the complainants constrain to yield to said demand of the opposite party for Rs.5,000/- and pay accordingly and getting the caping to the tooth and the opposite party refusing to issue any bills for amounts received and even the summary of treatment tendered and the Dy.SP , Kurnool refusing take action on the opposite party and advising the complainant to approach the forum for redressal and the conduct of the opposite party is not only a professional misconduct but also an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party caused his appearance through his counsel and contested the case denying the truth in complainants case and any of its liability to the complainants claim filling a written version .
3. The written version of the opposite party seeks dismissal of the complainant as the complainant is not the patient who has taken treatment with the opposite party and thereby any consumer status to the complainant to file this case especially when no power of attorney even in favour of the complainant to file this case for his son and the fees aggred was Rs.4,000/- for removal of one tooth and putting cap and Rs.3,000/- for removal of another tooth and the complainants son P.V.Srikanth paying RS.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- on 17-12-2007 and Rs.3,500/- only 22-12-2007 after caping the teeth and the receipts were issued for the amounts received and the complainant had any approach to the opposite party in said consultation and treatment of his son and the case of the complainant is with malafide intention .
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon documentary record in Ex.A1 to A5 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its case the opposite party has side merely takes reliance on his sworn affidavit in support of its case.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the liability of the opposite party for the complainants claim .
6. The Ex.A1 is a dental x-ray film with report of observation notes on its cover and the ex.A2 is the receipt for the payments made for it there being any denial of the opposite party as to this x-ray report the Ex.A1 and A2 needs any discussion as they establish the fact which they denote.
7. The Ex.A3 and A4 medical prescriptions of the opposite party dental hospital dated 9-12-2007 and 26-12-2007 relating to M. Srikanth none of the above whisper anything as to the fees agreed upon for rendering dental services by the opposite party for the complaints of said Srikanth . Hence the Ex.A3 and A4 are remaining of any help for assessing the fact whether the opposite party has made this complaint to pay more than agreed fees by any of his un reasonable conduct .
8. The Ex.A5 is said to be a report of complainant lodged with Dy.Sp on 27-12-2007 complaining against the un reasonable conduct of the opposite party in extracting more fees than agreed taking un due advantage of the patients emergency to leave to Amercia. While the Ex.A5 alleges the payment of demanded amounts by him to the opposite party the written version of the opposite party alleged the payment of amounts to opposite party by the said patient Srikanth himself that to an amount of Rs.6,500/- only as against the demanded of Rs.7,000/- . The complainant except alleging himself that he paid the amount Rs.7,000/- to the opposite party under constrained circumstances did not place any cogent material record as to agreed fees originally . Nor did the said Dy.Sp to whom the Ex.A5 was said to have been given by the complainant , complaining against the unreasonable conduct of the opposite party in extracting more amount than agreed, was examined by the complainant side to asses the conduct of the opposite party for the matters and draw any inference of his alleged unreasonable conduct in extracting any more fees than agreed.
9. The complaint and his sworn affidavit alleges refusal on the part of the opposite party to give the summary of treatment and the bill for fees and asserts the same in his reply to the interrogatories of the opposite party . The opposite party in reply to interrogatories No.2 of the complainant says that the payments were normally noted in the prescriptions . But as none of the prescriptions in ex. 3 and 4 bears any material as to the fees agreed or payments made , there appears every doubt on the veracity of the opposite party on said aspect . The opposite party gives an evasive answer to the interrogatory No.3 as to the omission to mention the name of the so called specialist Maxillo Facial Surgeon whose assistance said to have been taken saying that it was pleaded without giving any particulars as to the reasons for said omission or particulars of said specialists surgeon . Nor any of the prescription in Ex.A3 and A4 envisage any reference to any said specialist . Hence there appears any bonafidees in the said contentions of the opposite party and for charging any more fees . In the same way the opposite party answers to the interrogatory No.5 of the complainant as furnished particulars of Bangalore maker of cap without furnishing inacutality with the reply to the interrogatories . Further the conduct of the opposite party in not maintaining any record as to the fees he is charging to the patients for attending the treatment of the complainants appear to be very strange especially when he is a private practitioner survives on correct collection of the fees from the patients which will not be possible without any fool proof record which he can make avail in case of unscrupulos patients who try to avail the fees for treatment rendered. No reason appears for such non maintenance of record by the opposite party as to the fees collected from the patients medical services rendered to them expect to have an concealed and un accounted account to avoid any income tax .
10. When there is no dispute as to the amount received for the treatment to Srikanth and when the complainant is alleging it has been collected from him un reasonably taking advantage of the patients urgent situation to leave to America and when it is not as per opposite party as alleged by the complainant it is for the opposite party to establish by cogent means and material the amount collected was nothing but charged lawfully and collected from the patient alone . But the opposite party has not discharged said primary obligation of justifying the fees that is collected for said treatment to Srikanth and in said state of circumstances the opposite party remains to have resorted to an unfair trade practice of collecting more amount than agreed especially when he has not substantiated the fact of taking assistant of any special surgeon and the incurring of any additional expenditure for procuring the cap to charge any extra amount from the patient .
11. The complainant is father of said patient Srikanth and allege all the payments to opposite party were made by him besides alleging the visit of himself also along with his son and this fact is confirmed in the letter addressed by said Srikanth to this forum alleging himself as NRI residing in U.S.A . In the said letter he says that his father ( complainant ) taking the issue on his behalf before this forum on account of his constrains not to be in India for pursuing his employment in U.S.A. . In the absence of any contradicting material from the opposite party to the above there appears any merit in the contentions of the opposite party that the complainant is having any local standie or power of attorney to file this case.
12. There being any cogent material from the opposite party contradicting the collection of extra amount for the treatment render to Srikanth son of the complainant and the circumstances discussed above as also in favour of the complainant there appears bonafides in the case of the complainant at the liability of the opposite party for his un fair trade practice of collection of more amount as fess than agreed for rendering said dental services.
13. Consequently, the case of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.4,000/- collected in excess and a compensation of Rs.2,000/- for mental agony suffered and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this case as driven the complainant for redressal of his grievances to the forum . Time granted for compliance is one month from the receipt of this order . In default the payment of supra stated award amount to complainant with 12 % interest from the date of default till realization shall be on the opposite party .
Dictated to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of August, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. X ray film with envelop
Ex.A2. Receipt Dated 7-12-2007 for Rs. 250/-
Ex.A3. Prescription dated 9-12-2007
Ex.A4. Prescription dated 26-12-2007
Ex.A5. Complainant letter dated 27-12-2007 to DSP, Kurnool..
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
s
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite party
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
