BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 14th day of June 2018
Filed on : 12-02-2016
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.100/2016
Between
Deepu Varghese, : Complainant
S/o. Babu Varghese, (By Adv. Sevi Varghese,
Nellikunnath house, 'Sreedevi, NSS Karayogam
MLA Road, UdayamperoorP.O., Buildings, North of Devi Temple,
Pin-682 307. Chottanikkara, Ernakulam)
And
1. Dr. George Mahew, : Opposite parties
Cassuality Medical Officer, (By Adv. George Cherian Karippapa-
Welcare Hospital,S.A. Road, rambil, Karippaparambil Associates
Vytila, Kochi-682 019. HB 48, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-36)
2. Mrs. Bency Apraim,
General Manager (Admn.),
Welcare Hospital,
S.A.Road, Vytila,
Kochi-682 019.
````` O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant met with a road accident on 21-08-2014 near Chambakkara over bridge in Ernakulam. He was immediately taken to the 2nd opposite party hospital, where the 1st opposite party hospital was the casualty medical officer. As the complainant had suffered serious injuries the 1st opposite party doctor had referred the complainant to Medical Trust hospital Ernakulam, where he was given treatment including surgery. Meanwhile, on 28-08-204 the complainant was informed by the office of the 2nd opposite party to remit Rs. 600/- in order to issue his accident register-cum wound certificate. As demanded by the 2nd opposite party the complainant remitted Rs. 600/- as per bill No. 8721 with patient No. 300976. The 2nd opposite party also demanded the original bill and issued another duplicate bill and told the complainant that the amount is being collected as it is a medico-legal case. The amount of Rs. 600/- collected from the complainant as CMO charges is illegal and demand of payment was without any service. The collection of the amount was on the pretext that the casualty medical officer will have to attend court to testify the injuries. The complainant thereafter caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 05-11-2014, it was replied by the opposite party with untenable contentions . The complainant therefore seek directions to be issued to the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs. 600/- collected from him on 28-03-2014 with 18% interest till realization and to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the proceedings with compensation for the inconvenience and sufferings.
3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed a joined version contending inter-alia as follows:
4. The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant met with an accident on 21-08-2014 and he was brought to the opposite party hospital and due to the gravity of injury he was referred to medical trust hospital, Ernakulam after giving first aid. The By-standers refused to remit the casualty fee of Rs. 600 on that day for issuing the wound certificate. If the casualty medical officer's fee is not paid, the opposite party was not obliged to issue the wound certificate. Thereafter the by-standers of the complainant remitted Rs. 600/- towards CMO fees on 28-08-2014 and the wound certificate was issued. As the complainant lost the original bill the opposite party had issued a duplicate bill towards the fees of the doctors who had certified the wound . The doctors are to be paid salary for the day even when they appear before court to testify the injuries in the wound certificate. The cost of one day appearance by the doctor , who is on duty is much more than the fees collected by the 2nd opposite party hospital The bata is given to the witness is only for meeting the travelling expenses of the witness . Therefore, the allegation of the complainant that the collection of CMO charges is illegal and without service, is incorrect. The claim made by the complainant is without any basis and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for consideration.
Whether the complainant had proved that there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
If so whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and quantum thereof?
6. The evidence in this case consists of Exbts. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the complainant and no documents marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit filed by the 1st opposite party. Witness tendered for cross examination but was not cross examined by the complainant, since he was absent DW1 was marked.
7.Issue No. i. Exbt. A1 is the receipt issued to the complainant on 21-08-2014 at 6.35p.m. towards registration fees of the hospital as consultation fee of the casualty medical officer . As per Exbt. A1 the complainant had paid Rs. 270/- including both these counts. The patient recognition number allotted to the complainant as per Exbt. A1 was 300976. Exbt. A2 is a copy of the duplicate bill issued in the name of the complainant on 28-08-2014 at 12.18p.m. As per Exbt. A3 the complainant had paid Rs. 600/- towards CM Office, the bill number of Exbt. A3 is 8721 and the original bill number of Exbt. A1 was 36836 of the casualty department. The opposite party had admitted the collection of Rs. 600/- on 28-08-2014. Exbt. A2 is a chit issued to the complainant to pay Rs. 600/- in the counter towards fee for medical legal case number 23396.
8. The complainant caused to issue Exbt. A4 lawyer notice to the 1st opposite party alleging a collection of illegal amount. Exbt. A5 is the reply notice given by the opposite party to Exbt. A4 notice. In Exbt. A5, reply notice the opposite party had contended that they did not charge any excess money from the patient and the charges collected at Rs. 600/- was to meet towards the fees for issuing the wound certificate and other medico – legal expenses to be met by the hospital.
9. There is no dispute to the fact that the opposite party had collected Rs. 600/- towards the issuance of wound certificate to the police in medico-legal cases. The instant case being a motor accident case, according to the opposite party the casualty medical officer who issue the medical certificate is likely to be summoned before Court of Law to testify the wound certificate for which the hospital will have to pay his salary . Therefore, the patient who suffered the injury has to compensate the hospital authority by making a payment for the anticipated appearance before the Court of Law. It was also contended that the amount of bata being paid to the doctors by the Courts would meet only the traveling expense of the doctor and the hospital has to pay his salary for the day. Therefore, the collection of fees for issuance of wound certificate under the caption ‘CMO fees” can not be said to be illegal and that cannot be challenged before a Consumer Forum.
10. On going through the documents produced, it is seen that an amount of Rs. 50/- was collected from the complainant towards registration fees of the hospital. An amount of Rs. 220/- was collected towards the consultation fee of the casualty medical officer on 21-08-2014. The opposite party is not seen to have any medication to the complainant in the hospital, as there is no evidence to show that the opposite party had charged amount towards the purchase of medicines or for availing any other service other than consultation. The opposite party had already collected Rs. 220/- towards casualty medical officers consultation fee.
11. When license is granted to a hospital by the Government to establish a hospital, it is incumbent duty of the hospital to keep all relevant records pertains to the list of patients, register of wound certificate in medico-legal cases, and other relevant records pertaining to the employees, their pay , allowances , duty time etc. as a pre-condition for grant of license. The collection of Rs. 600/- in this case in order to prepare a statutory document which was bound to be prepared as per the Rules of the State Government, has to be held as unauthorized and in inhuman act on the part of the opposite party. It is the statutory duty of any hospital authorities to prepare 'wound certificate' in case of medico-legal cases. The collection of the fees from the patient for preparing wound certificate, the preparation of which is a statutory liability of the hospital, is a clear case of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice . We find that the opposite party hospital is bound to refund the amount paid by the complainant by way of CMO fees as per Exbt. A3. The issue is found in favour of the complainant.
12. Issue No. ii. The complainant had suffered an accident on 21-08-2014. He was referred to Medical Trust Hospital by the opposite parties and was undergoing treatment at Medical trust hospital at Ernakulam on 28-08-2014. When the complainant was undergoing the trauma of the accident in a different hospital, he was informed by the opposite parties over the phone, to make a payment of Rs. 600/- in order to prepare the wound certificate, by adding insult to the injury which he had already sustained in the accident. The averment of the complainant that he had suffered mental agony is substantiated by this circumstance alone. We find that the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- in the circumstances of the case for the illegal demand and collection of amount under the cover of CMO charges in the medico-legal case.
Issue No. iii. In the result, the complaint is allowed by making the following directions to the 2nd opposite party hospital.
i. To refund Rs. 600/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from 28-08-2014 till the date of payment to the complainant.
ii. To pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for the inconvenience, mental agony and sufferings suffered by the complainant due to the illegal demand and collection of unmerited money from the complainant.
iii. To stop the practice of collection of any amount from the victims of medico-legal cases towards the cost of preparation of statutory wound certificate from the date of receipt of copy of this order, as it is found that such practice of collection is unfair trade practice.
iv. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the proceedings to the complainant which we estimated at Rs. 5,000/-. All the payments shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 14th day of June 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Bill dt. 21-08-2014
A2 : Copy of receipt dt. 28/08
A3 : Copy of bill dt. 23-08-2014
A4 : True copy of lawyer notice
dt. 05-11-2014
A5 : Letter dt. 12-11-2014
Opposite party's Exhibits: : Nil
Deposition
DW1 : Dr. George Mathew
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
