Haryana

Kaithal

302/20

Surender - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.A.K Mittal - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Naresh Sharma

12 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.302/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 22.09.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:12.07.2023.

Surender son of Sh. Raj Kumar, resident of House No.1043, Sector-18, HUDA, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

Dr. A.K.Mittal, General and Endoscopy Surgeon, Resident of Mittal Surgical Hospital, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

….OP.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Naresh Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. K.K.Khetarpal, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Surender-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OP.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant was admitted in the hospital of OP on 19.12.2019 and was operated upon for Laproscopy Surgery of gall bladder (Lapchole) and was discharged on 21.12.2019 from the hospital.  The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.16,000/- in total as operation and hospital charges (including Rs.3,000/- as anesthesia charges) and at the time of discharge on 21.12.2019, the OP issued an Emergency Certificate in this regard and on demand of bill/receipt for the amount paid, the OP lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  The case of complainant is that he is posted as MPHW in Civil Hospital, Kaithal and was in need of bill/receipt for payment of operation, hospital charges to claim the reimbursement of the hospital charges from the Department but the OP did not issue the bill/receipt.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the real facts are that the complainant was admitted with the hospital of OP on 19.12.2019 with diagnoses of Ch. Cholecystitis.  Laproscopy was done on the person of complainant and he was discharged on 21.12.2019 in a satisfaction condition.  Complainant was charged Rs.13,000/- as operation fee and Rs.3,000/- as aneshthesia charges from the complainant for which Emergency Certificate, Discharge Card and original bill dt. 21.12.2019 was issued to the complainant.  Complainant might have lost the original bill No.676 dt. 21.12.2019 and he contacted the OP for issuing the duplicate copy of bill No.676 dt. 21.12.2019 and attested copy of the same was issued to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was admitted in the hospital of OP on 19.12.2019 and was operated upon for Laproscopy Surgery of gall bladder (Lapchole) and was discharged on 21.12.2019 from the hospital.  The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.16,000/- in total as operation and hospital charges (including Rs.3,000/- as anesthesia charges) and at the time of discharge on 21.12.2019, the OP issued an Emergency Certificate in this regard and on demand of bill/receipt for the amount paid, the OP lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  It is further argued that the complainant is posted as MPHW in Civil Hospital, Kaithal and was in need of bill/receipt for payment of operation, hospital charges to claim the reimbursement of the hospital charges from the Department but the OP did not issue the bill/receipt.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant was admitted with the hospital of OP on 19.12.2019 with diagnoses of Ch. Cholecystitis.  It is further argued that Laproscopy was done on the person of complainant and he was discharged on 21.12.2019 in a satisfaction condition.  Complainant was charged Rs.13,000/- as operation fee and Rs.3,000/- as aneshthesia charges from the complainant for which Emergency Certificate, Discharge Card and original bill dt. 21.12.2019 was issued to the complainant.  Complainant might have lost the original bill No.676 dt. 21.12.2019 and he contacted the OP for issuing the duplicate copy of bill No.676 dt. 21.12.2019 and attested copy of the same was issued to the complainant.     

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is clear from the Annexure-C2 that the emergency certificate was issued to the complainant.  The grievance of the complainant is that the OP did not issue the bill of Rs.16,000/- and only issued an Emergency Certificate.  The complainant has drawn our attention towards the application as per Annexure-C3 vide which the complainant applied to Civil Surgeon, Kaithal for reimbursement of amount of Rs.16,000/- and on the back side of this application, it is reported by Accounts Officer, O/o Civil Surgeon, Kaithal that the original bill was not attached with the application and the application of complainant was sent back to concerned office, so, reimbursement of Rs.16,000/- was not made to the complainant.  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP to pay Rs.16,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from today, in default, the said amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  The OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly. 

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:12.07.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.