IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/108/2016.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

     13.07.16                                      17.08.16                                  03.09.2019

Complainant: Swadhin Halder

S/O- Late Nabadwip Halder,

Vill- Jayantinagar, PO- Chaitanyapur,

 PS- Beldanga,

Pin- 742134

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1.Dr. Sudip Sarkar

Assistant Professor,

Murshidabad Medical College And Hospital,Chember, Suraksha, 148, R.N. Tagore Road,

PO & PS- Berhampore,

 Pin- 742101

2.The Manager, Lila Hospital Pvt. Ltd.

13/3/A, A.C. Road,

PO- Khagra, PS- Berhampore,

Pin- 742103

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Smt. Bidishya Sarkar.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party Nos.1&2      : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

            One Swadhin Halder (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Dr. Sudip Sarkar and another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

  The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows:-

            That the Wife of the Complainant, namely, Arati halder was taken to the OP No.1 for her abdominal pain on 19.04.16 who clinically examined the patient and on verifying the reports advised the Complainant to admit the patient at Lila Hospitals (OP No.2) for immediate operations. On query, the OP No.1 told the Complainant that the total cost of treatment was about Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- and the Nursing Home authority would prepare the bill for cost of treatment. Accordingly, as per advice of the OP No.1, the patient was admitted at Lila Hospitals and operation was done on that day. On the next day, the Complainant paid Rs.30,000/- as per demand of OP No.1 but on the date of release i.e. on 25.04.16, the authority of Lila Hospitals received total Rs.52,700/- including doctors fee of Rs.26,000/-. The Complainant raised objection and asked the Lila Hospital authority why the total amount of Rs.52,700/- was payable as she had already paid Rs.30,000/- to the OP No.1 but the OP No.2 did not pay any heed to it and asked the Complainant to pay the entire amount of Rs. 52,700/-. Ultimately, the Complainant went to the OP No.1 and asked him the reason for excess bill when he asked the Complainant to pay Rs.30,000/- to him otherwise, the patient would not be released. The OP No.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant and the Complainant was  compelled to pay Rs.30,000/- to the OP No.1 and on demand, he issued a receipt for receiving Rs.60,000/- from the Complainant by him. The Complainant prayed for refund of Rs.60,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

            The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version on 26.10.17, inter alia, denying the material allegations made out in the complaint, contending that the patient was presented before him with the features of intestinal obstruction and the OP advised for immediate operations. The Petitioner opted Lila Hospital as the OP was attached to the said Hospital and the OP informed the Petitioner that the total cost of operation is about Rs.1,20,000/-. The Petitioner agreed and out of such amount, the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- as advance to the OP No.1. Then the patient got admitted in Lila Hospitals and the OP operated the patient. The operation was successful. There was no post operative complication. At the time of discharge, the OP No.2 demanded a sum of Rs.52,700/-validly and the Petitioner paid the amount. The cost of operation was a sum of Rs.1,12,700/- within Rs.1,20,000/-. so no excess amount was taken. There was no dispute about such payment. Later, the Complainant has filed the case with false allegations. There was no unfair trade practice/deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

            The OP No.2 contested the case by filing written version on 26.10.17, inter alia denying  the material allegations made out in the complaint, contending that the patient, Arati Halder admitted on 19.04.16 at Lila Hospitals Pvt. Ltd and discharged on 25.04.16. The OP No.2 raised the bill and the Complainant paid the amount without any protest. The operation was successful and there was no negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.2. The allegations against the OP No.2 are baseless. and the petition is liable to be rejected.   

            On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Have the OPs any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OPs for consideration for treatment of his wife.

The Ld. Advocate for the OPs has not argued on that point.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

Point No.2

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action of this case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Point Nos.3&4

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP No.1 has admitted that the Complainant paid Rs.60,000/- for treatment of his wife Arati Halder to the OP No.1 and  the OPNo.2 admitted that the Complainant paid Rs.52,700/- to the OP No.2 for treatment of his wife, Arati Halder.

            On perusal of the invoice of Lila Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. dated 25.04.16, we find that Surgeons fee/ PC was Rs.26,000/-.

            It is not the case of either of the parties that the operation of Arati Halder was done by any other Surgeon except the OP No.1. It is the case of the OP No.1 that he gave an estimation to the Complainant that the cost of operation is around Rs.1,20,000/- but it is the case of the Complainant that the OP No.1 gave estimation  that the cost of treatment would be  around Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. Admittedly, the Complainant paid Rs.52,700/- to Lila Hospitals for treatment of his wife, Arati Halder including the Surgeons fee. It is not understood why the OP No.1 received extra amount of Rs.60,000/- and issued the so called receipt dated 27.04.16 stating that they received Rs.60,000/- and surgical team charge. It is not acceptable that the patient party would pay twice for Surgeons fee / Surgical Team Charge for same operation of a patient. The amount of Rs.60,000/- received by the OP No.1 is nothing but an unfair trade practice.

            On a careful consideration, we find that the OP No.2 did not release the patient on receiving on Rs.52,700/- and the Complainant was compelled to pay Rs.30,000/- again to the OP No.1 for releasing the patient.

Therefore, the OP No.2  has deficiency in service.

We think that the Complainant has been able to establish unfair trade practice against the OP No.1 and deficiency in service against the OP No.2. So the Complainant is entitled to get relief against both the OPs.

In our considered opinion, the Complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.60,000/- along with interest @ 7% Per Annum with effect from 27.04.16 till realisation from the OP No.1.

We also think that the Complainant is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- from the OP No.2 for deficiency in service.

The OP No.1 may also be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice. and the Said amount may be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 13.07.16 and admitted on 17.08.16 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

Fees paid are correct.

In the result, the complaint case succeeds. Hence, it is

                                             ORDERED

that the Complaint Case No. CC/108/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OPs with cost of Rs.2,000/-.

The O.P. No.1 is directed to refund  Rs.60,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum with effect from 27.04.16 till realization to the complainant by sixty days from the date of this order.

The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for illegal trade practice and the Said amount shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account by sixty days from the date of this order.

The O.P. No.2 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service by sixty days from the date of this order.

Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant by sixty days from the date of this order.

              Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

                                       President

Member                                                                                         President.