DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.163 of 2018
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 23.10.2018.
DATE OF ORDER: 16.01.2020
Dr.Maman Chand Sharma, aged 76 years son of Shri Palla Ram r/o B-12, Giriraj Colony, Meham Road, Bhiwani (Haryana).
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Dr.V.K.Vyas, near Kavandia ka Mandir, Patram Gate, Halu Bazar, Bhiwani.
- The Civil Surgeon, Ch.Bansi Lal Civil Hospital, Bhiwani.
- The Director General Health Services, Haryana, Sector-6, Panchkula, 134109.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Nagender Singh, President.
Shri Shriniwas Khundia, Member
Present: - Complainant in person.
Sh.R.K.Verma, Advocate for OP No.1.
Sh.D.K.Ahuja, on behalf of OP No.2.
OP No.3 exparte.
ORDER:-
Nagender Singh, President
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he visited the clinic of Opposite party No.1 on 19.12.2017 for treatment of cough problem where opposite party No.1 had charged Rs.50/- and also issued an identity card after charging Rs.10/- for the same. When there was no relief, the complainant again visited the opposite party No.1 on 24.12.2017, but opposite party No.1 had changed the medicine and charged Rs.100/- and asked the complainant to visit on 31.12.2017. The complainant visited the opposite party No.1 on 31.12.2017 with the same condition, then the opposite party No.1 changed the medicines and charged Rs.100/- for one week. The complainant was unable to visit the clinic on 07.01.2018 and he visited the same on 08.01.2018 and asked that opposite party No.1 cannot charge Rs.100/- but the opposite party No.1 lost his temper and misbehaved with complainant on the pretext that the complainant cannot be attended out of turn being even a senior citizen. The opposite party No.1 also retained the prescription slip with him. The complainant moved application dated 31.01.2018 to the Civil Surgeon, Bhiwani and also wrote letter to higher authorities but to no avail. The act and conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service.
2. On notice opposite parties No.1 & 2 to appeared and filed their separate replies. Opposite Party No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, locus standi, jurisdiction and concealment of material facts etc. It has been submitted that the clinic situated at Gali Khylican, Patram Gate, Bhiwani used to open from Monday to Saturday with times 9 A.M. to 1 P.M. and 3 P.M. to 7 P.M. in winter season and 9 A.M. to 1 P.M. and 54 P.M. to 8 P.M. in summer and there was no procedure that patient or his attendant has to come in the clinic and to get the token number for his daily visit on daily basis on arrival of the patient as well as telephonically. Parties were called by the serial number and the patients who did not present at their call, then the next number is called and the missed patient was called after 5 patients. The opposite party No.1 charged nominal charges of Rs.50/- per patient per week including checkup and cost of medicines. The timing of clinic situated at Old Housing Board Colony Market, Bhiwani are 9 A.M. to 1 P.M. in summer season and 10 A.M. to 2 P.M. in winter season only on Sunday and fee for checkup and medicines was Rs.100/- per week per patient. The charges for both the centers are separate whereas if the patient visited on same centre within a week, no separate charges are required. There is no provision to attend senior citizen on priority basis and only in emergency the patient is checked out of turn without taking into consideration the age of the patient. It has been further submitted that the Civil Surgeon, Bhiwani had conducted enquiry and the replying opposite party was not found negligent in the complaint and the same was dismissed being found baseless. The replying opposite party had provided best medicines as per symptoms of disease and the facts narrated by the complainant with regard to his disease with his best knowledge and skill. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying opposite party. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that on receiving of complaint from the complainant against opposite party No.1, Dr.Meena Barwar, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Bhiwani was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who conducted proper and proper enquiry and submitted her report wherein he had clearly mentioned that the opposite party No.1 had never misbehaved with the complainant. The replying opposite party has no authority to give any directions against a private practitioner doctor about the fee structure, however, directions regarding providing facility to senior citizens were given to the opposite party No.1. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Opposite party No.3 did not come present before this Forum after lapsing of period of more than 30 days as the summons were sent through registered post, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.12.2018.
4. The complainant has filed the re-joinder wherein the facts mentioned in the complaint has been reiterated and the stands taken by the replying opposite parties have been controverted.
5. Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence. The complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C6 and closed the evidence on 25.07.2019 whereas the opposite party No.1 had tendered documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5 and closed the evidence on 18.11.2019. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the opposite party No.2 and the same was closed on 25.07.2019.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the written submissions submitted on behalf of the parties and the record of the case very carefully.
7. Undisputedly, the complainant has taken treatment from opposite party No.1. The complainant has come with the plea that the as per the opposite party No.1 had charged Rs.50/- when he had visited it for the first time and this fee is mentioned on the notice (Annexure C1) but when there was no relief in cough problem, the complainant again visited the opposite party No.1 on 24.12.2017 but it had charged Rs.100/- despite the fact that the fee was mentioned in the notice as Rs.50/- which clearly shows that the opposite party No.1 is indulged in unfair trade practice. It has also been argued by the complainant that the opposite party No.1 is also negligent in performing his duties as he made experiments in treatment by changing the medicines every time.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that the consultation fee and medicine fee is Rs.50/- and only on Sunday and fee for checkup and medicines was Rs.100/- per week per patient. Since, the complainant had visited the opposite party No.1 on Sunday, therefore, Rs.100/- was charged and being a private practitioner it is the prerogative of the opposite party No.1 to fix the fee schedule. The opposite party No.1 has given the medicines to the complainant as per his expertise and there is no medical negligence on its part. It has been further argued that the complainant has not produced any document/evidence on the case file regarding medical negligence. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that on receiving of complaint against opposite party No.1, Dr.Meena Barwar, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Bhiwani was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who conducted proper and proper enquiry and submitted her report wherein he had clearly mentioned that the opposite party No.1 had never misbehaved with the complainant but some directions were given.
9. Perusal of the case file reveals that there is nothing on the case file to show that the opposite party No.1 was found negligent in its profession. In general, in any treatment, it is never claimed by healthcare providers that every person who receives the treatment must and should be benefit by the same. One type of treatment may not be suitable to one, but may be suitable to another. A patient may respond to one medicine, another may not respond to the same medicine. Merely because the patient was not relieved from the disease, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the therapy is bad or that the healthcare provider has not given proper treatment. Since the complainant has failed to prove on the case file that the opposite party No.1 was negligent in performing the duty, therefore, this plea of the complainant is rejected. The complainant is a senior citizen and it is strange that the opposite party No.1 being indulged in a noble profession of doctor has not provided/arranged facilities for senior citizens, therefore, in the enquiry conducted by the Dr.Meena Barwar, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Bhiwani some directions for providing facilities to the senior citizens were given. As per notice Annexure C2, the consultation fee was Rs.50/- but the opposite party No.1 had charged Rs.100/- from the complainant and this fact is not denied by the opposite party No.1. Though, it has been pleaded that the fee for Sunday only was Rs.100/- by displaying the same on the notice but there is nothing on the case file to show that the opposite party No.1 has ever displayed the fee Rs.100/- on any notice, which is clear cut unfair trade practice as defined under Consumer Protection Act. Since the opposite party No.2 & 3 have no role to play, therefore, the complaint against opposite party No.2 & 3 stands dismissed.
10. Keeping in view the above discussion, we hereby partly allow this complaint against opposite party No.1 with a direction to him to pay Rs.50/- to the complainant, which have been charged in excess alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization. The opposite party No. 1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- in lump sum as compensation on account of mental agony, unfair trade practice and cost of litigation. The order be complied within 30 days from the date of order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 16.01.2020
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
