Date of filing: 06/03/2018
Judgment date: 25/04/2023
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint is filed by Mr. Dipak Chakroborty under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (referred as OPs hereinafter) namely (1) Dr. Shubhanon Roy (2) Executive Chairman and (3) Superintendent of Fortis Hospital, alleging deficiency in rendering of service on the part of the OPs.
Case of the complainant in short that he was admitted in the Fortis Hospital on 26.09.2014 and underwent permanent pacemaker implantation (Medtronic Relia Redoi – DDD) on 27.09.2014 by OP No. 1 and was discharged on 29.09.2014. But in spite of repeated request OPs have not issued ‘invoice’ after implantation of Dual chamber pacemaker. A legal notice was also sent to OPs dated 19.02.2017 but as it was not supplied, present complaint is filed by the complainant praying for directing the OPs to issue ‘invoice’ to the complainant, to pay Rs. 1,64,170/- along with interest accrued thereon, to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and to pay litigation cost.
OP 1 has contested the case by filing the written version contending specifically that issuance of ‘invoice’ is dealt by the hospital exclusively and the treating doctor has no say in the matter. Since complainant has not made any allegation regarding the treatment and surgery conducted, OP No. 1 has been made unnecessarily a party in this case.
OP 2 & 3 have also contested the case by filing separate written version denying the allegation contending specifically that the complaint being time barred is not maintainable as the purported cause of action arose on 29.09.2014 but the present complaint is filed on 07.02.2018 i.e. after 3 years and 04 months. It is further contended that since no demand was made by the complainant for such ‘invoice’ it was not provided. Thus OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case.
During the course of evidence, both parties filed their respective examination in chief on affidavit followed by filing of questionnaires and reply thereto. Ultimately both parties filed brief notes of argument and also advanced argument.
So the following points require to be determined:-
- Whether the present complaint is maintainable in law?
- Whether there has been deficiency in rendering of service on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
Point No. 1
OPs have specifically contended that the present complaint is time barred as it is filed much after the period of two years from the accrual of alleged cause of action. In this regard, it may be pertinent to point out that as per section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 no complaint shall be entertained if the said complaint is not filed within two years from the cause of action. In this case admittedly surgery was conducted on 27.09.2014 and complainant was discharged on 29.09.2014 but the present complaint is filed on 06.03.2018 which is much after the statutory period of two years. However it may be pertinent to point out that according to complainant, he repeatedly requested the OPs to issue ‘invoice’ but it was not issued. So a legal notice dated 19.02.2017 was also sent. Copy of the said notice dated 19.02.2017 is filed wherefrom it appears that complainant through his Ld. Advocate has specifically stated that “my client and his family members repeatedly met to both of you for having “Invoice” for his medical treatment and implantation of Dual chamber pacemaker and requested you time and again but your deaf ears remain unturned.”
Even though no reply was sent by the OP2 but OP1 replied to notice through his Ld. Advocate dated 10.03.2017. But on a careful scrutiny of the said reply it appears that OP has not denied the abovementioned fact stated by the complainant that he approached OPs number of times. It is no where stated in the said reply that complainant never approached the OP for issuing ‘invoice’. So if there is no denial than claim of the complainant that he had approached the OPs repeatedly for issuing the invoice but when it was not issued, he filed the complaint, cannot be disbelieved. So if that so, than contention of OP that the complaint is barred by limitation cannot be accepted and thus this point is answered accordingly.
Point No. 2 & 3
Both these points being interlinked are taken up together for discussion.
Claim of the complainant that he has not been issued ‘invoice’ of RELIA RED 01 – DD after implantation of Dual Chamber Pacemaker, appears to be not disputed by the OPs. According to OP No. 1, procedure is that patient should apply for the invoice and once it is done, hospital provides him the same. To a specific question put by the complainant i.e. “Has th complainant got invoice on purchasing of dual chamber pacemaker like others, as you had promised and / or arranged the same”.
OP 2 & 3 have replied that “complainant got a detailed bill from OP 2 and 3 via bill No. ICS46074 which included the price of the implant under miscellaneous column”. It is also stated in the said reply filed by OP 2 & 3 being reply to question no. 25 that “I have never received any communication from the complainant regarding the same or we would have provided him the same”.
So from the abovementioned statements it is evident that the invoice in question has not been issued to the complainant. According to complainant, he needed it to claim reimbursement from the department where he was working. OP 2 & 3 is also aware that certain bills are needed for reimbursement purpose. Same has been stated in reply filed by OP 2 & 3 to the question No. 22.
But in spite of the same, the invoice was not issued to the complainant. The contention of the OP 2 & 3 that complainant did not approach them to issue the invoice, is devoid of any merits. It is already discussed in point no. 1 that the claim of the complainant that he approached and requested repeatedly to OPs as stated in the notice dated 10/03/2017 has not been denied by the OP 1 in his reply. So the contention of the OPs specially OP 2 & 3 that complainant did not approach them for invoice is nothing but an afterthought.
Thus in view of the discussions as highlighted above, complainant is entitled to the ‘invoice’ relating to purchase of Dual Chamber Pacemaker and also compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- will be justified. However since it is the own case of the complainant that the purchase value or the bill amount will be reimbursed by his office on filing of proper bill & invoice, we find no justification to pass any order amounting to Rs. 1,64,170/- as claimed by the complainant. Since OP 1 is the treating doctor and issuing of invoice is not related to him, OP 2 & 3 are liable to issue ‘invoice’ and pay compensation.
Hence
ORDERED
CC/103/2018 is allowed on contest against OP 2 & 3 and dismissed against OP No. 1. OP 2 & 3 are directed to issue invoice for RED 01 RELIA D being tax invoice No. VIS/702/14-15 dated 27/09/2014 to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- within 45 days from this date. OP 2 & 3 are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- within the aforesaid period of 45 days. In default of payment, entire sum shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. till its realisation.
