By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:

Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to get compensation for the loss and sufferings caused to the complainant due to the deficiency of service of opposite parties.

2. Brief of complaint:- On 02.12.2012 complainant's wife admitted due to head ache and vomiting in Vinayaka Hospital Sulthan Bathery owned by opposite party No.2. Patient was kept under observation and shifted to room on 03.12.2012. Opposite party No.2 treated the patient. While the patient was improving she was discharged and referred to Medical College Hospital. Complainant alleges that there was no need to refer the patient to medical college hospital as opposite party No.1 himself has had a remark in the case sheet that the patient is improving. Discharging a patient by a Doctor who is improving resulted deficiency of service. Later complainant consulted another doctor at Visamaya Hospital, where the patient was treated for one day and discharged after recovered from disease. Again complainant alleges that opposite party No.2 has charged excess charges in the hospital bill when compared with other patients bills. Hence filed this complaint to get compensation for the mental agony, hardship and fear of life of the patient occurred due to the deficiency of service of this Opposite parties.

3. On being served, opposite parties entered and version filed. Opposite party No.1 admitted the admission of the 1^st complainant at opposite party No.2 hospital on 02.12.2012. The 1^st opposite party had seen the patient on 03.12.2012. Opposite party No.1 stated that the averments in the complaint are purposely framed on an experimental basis for the undue financial advantage of the complainant. The complainant's wife Smt. Thankamma came to the 2^nd opposite party hospital on 02.12.2012 around 8.05pm with complaints of giddiness and she was attended by duty RMO and admitted to the ICU for close monitoring. The 1^st opposite party had seen the patient on 03.12.2012 around 9am during his ICU rounds. On the basis of detailed examination and clinical history, the 1^st opposite party made a provisional diagnosis of Benign Positional Vertigo and the patient was put on Stemetil, Betahistine and Omeprazole-Domperidone. Routine blood investigation, RBS, RFI & Serum Cholesterol were conducted and ECG was taken. As the patient was haemodynamically and neurologically stable she was shifted to room. The patient required further evaluation in view of her severe headache and vomiting to rule out possibilities of other causes of vertigo like vertebro basilar stroke, ICSOL and demylinating diseases. On 03.12.2012 the patient remained stable. At 9.45pm she complained giddiness and was attended by duty RMO and found to be a febrile and nothing serious and hence advised symptomatic management with continuous monitoring of BP. On 04.12.2012 she was started on Amolodipine as her BP persistently remained high. On 05.12.2012 the 1^st opposite party examined the patient and found to be haemodynamically and neurologically stable but mild giddiness, headache and tiredness continued. The complainant and the patient were informed about the need for detailed neurological evaluation in view of persistence of head ache, giddiness and tiredness in spite of symptomatic management for 3 days. In the clinical opinion of the 1^st opposite party it would also be appropriate to rule out other causes of vertigo like Vertibrobasilsar stroke ICSOL and demyelinating diseases through investigations like MRI brain. The 1^st opposite party discussed with the patient and her bystanders about the need for reference to higher centre for neurology consultation and MRI investigation to rule out other possible causes of persistence of vertigo as service of Neurologist and facility for MRI was not available in the second opposite party hospital. The bystanders of the patient were desirous to take her to Medical College Hospital and reference was made to Medical College Hospital for further management based on neurological consultation. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party in taking decision for reference to higher centre. Again he stated that this 1^st opposite party is a paid employee of the 2^nd opposite party hospital and has no control over the management and administration of the Hospital including levy of hospital charges. In the light of above mentioned facts the 1^st opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.

4. Version of opposite party No.2 is as follows:- This opposite party admitted the course of treatment of the complainant's wife in his hospital and there was no vested interest or ill will towards the patient or to the complainant on the part of the 1^st opposite party in referring the patient to Medical College Hospital. 1^st opposite party acted as per the accepted medical practice and there was no negligence or deficiency in service on his part. At the time of reference the patient's condition was haemodynamically and neurologically stable and the bystanders themselves arranged conveyance and took her to higher centre as it was a non emergency case referred for effective investigations and evaluations. The 2^nd opposite party has not charged any excess amount for the treatment. The complainant has misunderstood the difference between the treatment charge and nursing charge. The opposite party not charged any amount illegally. There was no discrimination in charging the amount. The 2^nd opposite party has charged the amounts genuinely and keeping all norms of a standard hospital. The room rent does not include water charges and electricity charges. This opposite party has not charged any excess amount for the treatment and the complainant is not entitled claim any amount as alleged and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. On perusal of complaint, versions and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Points No.1 & 2:- Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and examined as PW1, PW2 and OPW1, OPW2 respectively. Ext.A1 to A8 were marked from the side of complainant and Ext.B1 to B3 marked from the side of opposite party No.1. Ext.B3 is the Medical record of Thankamma. Complainant argued that 1^st opposite party got annoyed when he was asked about the BP of the patient and in turn discharged the patient and referred to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode while she was improving. Opposite party contented that reference was made for neurology consultation and further management by a neurologist regarding probable other causes for persistence of symptoms through detailed investigations and there was no emergency causing fear of life. The decision for reference to higher centre was taken specifically for well justified medical reasons. On the clinical opinion of the treating doctor and not on getting annoyance on a query from the part of the patient about rate of BP as alleged in the complaint. At the time of reference the patient's condition was haemodynamically and neurologically stable and the bystanders themselves arranged conveyance and took her to higher centre as it was a non emergency case referred for effective investigations and evaluations as a doctor this opposite party No.2 had duly attended and treated the complainant as per standard protocol. Again opposite party No.1, argued that no damage has been caused to the patient either by the treatment in the 2^nd opposite party hospital as by reference to higher centre. This opposite party had exercised reasonable degree of skill and care in discharge of his duty and well justified in his clinical opinion for reference for neurology consultation and further evaluation based on investigations like MRI brain to rule out other causes of persistence of symptoms in spite of 3 days symptomatic treatment. This complainant was admitted in opposite party No.2 hospital on 02.12.2012 but on 05.12.2012 during the round of the 1^st opposite party the patient reported persistence of mild giddiness, headache and tiredness and the 1^st opposite party in his clinical judgment found it desirous to have further investigations and neurology consultation to rule out other possible causes for persistence of symptoms in spite of 3 days systematic medical measures. Since though the patient was found haemodynamically and neurologically stable on clinical examination.

7. Again complainant alleged that as per the direction of 1^st opposite party the 2^nd opposite party hospital charged dual charges upon the complainant. But opposite party argued that 1^st opposite party is a paid employee of the 2^nd opposite party and has no control over the management and administration of the hospital including levy of hospital charges. The 2^nd opposite party has not charged any excess amount to the treatment. To prove his case complainant examined a witness as PW2. On examination the Forum finds that both the patients were treated for different diseases and they were admitted in different type of rooms. We could not find any discrimination and unfair trade practice on bills to these patients. It depends upon the size of room, type of treatment and the facility availed by each of them. The 2^nd opposite party has charged the amount genuinely and keeping all norms of a standard hospital. On going through the evidences and records this Forum of the view that this complainant is not entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties. On the ground that no damage has been caused to them either by treatment or by the decision for reference made by 1^st opposite party and the bystanders of the patient were desirous to take her to higher centre as it was a non emergency case referred for effective investigation and evaluation. Since MRI was not available in opposite party No.1 hospital. Hence there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties. Hence complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The Points are found accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21^st day of July 2015.

Date of Filing:14.06.2013.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainants:-

PW1. Thomas. K. E. Complainant No.1.

PW2. V. S. Krishnan. Security.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1. Dr. Subramanyan. Doctor at Vinayaka Hospital, Sulthan Bathery.

OPW2. Shyma Manoj. Manager, Vinayaka Hospital, Sulthan Bathery.

Exhibits for the complainants:

A1. Cash Bill. Dt:05.12.2012.

A2. Cash Bill. Dt:06.12.2012.

A3. Discharge Card with clinical Note.

A4. Letter. Dt:04.12.2012.

A5. Envelope.

A6. Cash Bill. Dt:31.10.2012.

A7(1). Reply to Right to Information. Dt:05.02.2013.

A7(2). Copy of Register.

A7(3). Statement submitted by complainant.

A8(1). Reply to Right to Information.

A8(2). Statement submitted by complainant.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

B1. Copy of Lawyer Notice.

B2. Copy of Reply to Lawyer Notice.

B3. Medical Record.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-