Haryana

Karnal

MA/37/2023

Manoj Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Sachin Pruthi - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jan 2024

ORDER

 

 

Manoj Gupta Vs Dr. Sachin Pruthi

Present:    Applicant Manoj Gupta in person.

 

                Vide this order, we dispose of an application under Section 40 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for review of order dated 03.10.2023, moved by the applicant Manoj Gupta.

2.             Brief facts of the application are that this Commission has decided the above titled complaint vide order dated 03.10.2023. Being aggreieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 03.10.2023, the applicant has filed this application on the ground that as per sub-clause 9 of Section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act, “consumer rights includes” the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency and price of goods, products or services, as the case may be, so protect the consumer against unfair trade practice. As per clause 47 (vii) of sub Section 9 of Section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 not issuing bill or cash memo or receipt for the goods sold or services rendered to applicant also lies under the category of unfair trade practice. But at the time of discharge of my mother from the hospital OP No.1 did not deliver the discharge summary to the applicant, which contains the details about the treatment given to my mother by OP No.1 during hospital stay and further medical follow-up plans. Under final bill of Rs.71000/- OP No.1 charged Rs.13,200/- as medicine charges but it did not deliver the copy of cash memo/bills of it, containing details about the medicines given for treatment of the mother of the applicant. Under final bill, Op No.1 claimed Rs.6400/- as Investigation Charges but OP No.1 did not deliver the copies of diagnostic Test Reports of the investigations and tests performed by OP No.1 and the Cash Memos/bills thereof. These documents were also demanded from OP No.1 through e-mail also on 29.10.2019 and a letter dated 04.12.2019 but these documents have not been supplied by the OP No.1 till now to the applicant. The OP No.1 has also not submitted these documents along with its reply before the Commission. Neither any evidence is produced by OP No.1 to the Commission about its supplies. OP No.1 submitted its claim of Rs.71,000/- to OP No.1 after discharge of mother of the applicant on 22.10.2019 for hospitalization but OP No.2 altered the sum of approved amount again and again as per direction of OP No.1. Though this deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of OP No.2 deliberately approved less amount initially to provide the opportunity to OP No.1 to grab money from the applicant and unscrupulous exploitation of the applicant and OP No.1 succeeded to exploit the applicant and received Rs.25000/- from the applicant unscrupulously in connivance with OP No.2. OP No.2 never appeared before this Commission to reply on alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 08.03.2022 of this Commission. The mediclaim policy was purchased from OP No.3 so it is the liability and responsibility to OP No.3 to settle the claim as per terms of the policy honestly. OPs No.1 and 2 acted on behalf of OP No.3 hence OP No.3 is also liable and responsible for the act of OPs No.1 & 2.

3.             Under para No.15 of the order dated 03.10.2023, it is stated that OP No.2 approved the amount of Rs.32008/- against Op No.1 claim of Rs.71000/- and said amount was disbursed to the OP No.1 by OP No.3. Further under para No.16 & 19 of the order, it is stated Op No.1 after deducting the said amount remaining amount i.e. Rs.29092/- was demanded by Op No.1 on this complainant requested for giving deduction to him and after bargaining the complainant issued cheque for Rs.25000/- in favour of OP No.1. It is not true that cheque for an amount of Rs.25000/- has been returned to the applicant by the OP No.1. It is not true that OPs No.2 & 3 paid as per policy, as held in para No.20 of the order dated 03.10.2023 of this Commission. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it would be in the interest of justice that the said order be reviewed. Hence, prayed for review the order dated 03.10.2023.

4.             Applicant-complainant while reiterating the contents of the application, has submitted that at the time of discharge of his mother, OP No.1 did not deliver him the discharge summary etc. He further submitted that under the final bill of Rs.71000/-, OP No.1 charged Rs.13200/- as medicine charges but it did not deliver him the copy of cash memo. Under the final bill, the OP No.1 also claimed Rs.6400/- as investigation charges but did not deliver him the copy of diagnostic test report. The documents demanded by the applicant from OP No.1 through email and letter dated 04.12.2019 but the Op No.1 did not supplied the same to the applicant. He further argued that OP No.1 had no authority to demand any additional amount except the costs towards non-admissible amounts and the applicant-complainant has not received any cheque amount as alleged by the OP and lastly prayed for review the order dated 03.10.2023.            

5.             Arguments heard. Record perused.

6.             As per section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission only shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it, if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order. The present application has been filed within limitation prescribed under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 but on perusal of the order dated 03.10.2023, there is no error apparent in it. Furthermore, in the order dated 03.10.2023, all the points have been discussed in detail. If the applicant/complainant has any grievances qua the order dated 03.10.2023, then the efficacious remedy available with him is to file appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present application is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and papers be tagged with main case file.

 

Date of order: 15.01.2024

 

 

                                                                        President

                                                                        DCDRC, Karnal.

Member (1)                               Member (2)