Haryana

Ambala

CC/212/2017

Inderjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.P.C Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                     FORUM, AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  212 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         :  23.06.2017

                                                          Date of decision   :  17.07.2018

 

Inderjit Kaur wife of Sh. Joginder Singh resident of House No.2335/2, Hashmi Mohalla, Near Jandi Mandir, Ambala City, through GPA Sh. Joginder Singh.

    ……. Complainant.

                                                          Vs.

 

Dr. P.C.Sharma Eye Hospital, MBBS M.S.Arya Chowk Near Telephone Exchange, Ambala City through its Owner/Prop. Dr. P.C.Sharma.

 

 

 ….…. Opposite Party

 

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President,

Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

                  

 

Present:       Sh. Joginder Singh, GPA  for complainant.

                   Sh. D.S.Punia,  counsel for the OP.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant got her left eye treated from the OP on 24.03.2017 and paid the amount  of Rs. 17,000/- as per cash memo no.8044 dated 24.03.2017. As per  cash memo no.8044 dated 24.03.2017 the OP charged Rs. 17000/- as detailed in the Para No.2 of the present complaint  and also charged  Rs. 5,260/- as per cash memo no.22937 dated 24.03.2017 of Poonam Enterprises a sister concern of the same doctor as both the cash memos have been signed by Dr. P.C.Sharma. In this way the OP charges a sum of Rs. 22,260/- from the complainant for sudden dim vision, Redness and pain in left eye.  It is pertinent to mention here that the same doctor charged the following amount from one Sita Rani for the same type of treatment vide receipt nos. 8169 dated 13.04.2017  of Dr. P.C.Sharma Eye Hospital and vide receipt no. 23061 dated 13.04.2017 as detailed mentioned in Para No.3 of the complaint filed by the complainant. From the above it is clearly evident that the same doctor for the same type of treatment charged different amount and had charged Rs. 13,500/- excess from the complainant. The complainant through her husband met the Doctor several times and requested the OP for return of the excess amount charges from her but the OP has been promising to return the same but has been postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of Op, the complainant has suffered a huge mental & physical harassment and finance loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, estoppel and the complaint is wholly false and baseless. On merits, OP stated that the patient Sita Rani named did not suffer same problem as was being suffered and faced by the complainant.  The complainant without any allurement or any special concession, of her own approached the hospital for her treatment in an emergency situation along with her husband, as a routine patient, but she being retired J.B.T. Teacher explained to the staff that she would get reimbursement of the total expenses, so she should be explained expenses  of treatment  and operation  etc. to be conducted upon her. Patient Inderjit Kaur  age 70 years  came to the hospital with sudden dim vision, redness, and pain in left eye. On examination, she was diagnosed with Phaco-morphic glaucoma in left eye and her intra ocular was very high. After intra venous treatment (Monnitol) her intra ocular pressure was brought under control and patient operated  in emergency on 24.03.2017 at 11.30 a.m. After surgery, patient was advised for L/E Cataract surgery with MICS. She was explained of the risks and post surgery follow ups and expenses thereof and she readily agreed to undergo emergency operation on the same day i.e. 24.03.2017 and after paying expense bills of hospitalization and operation and treatment/medicines, she was discharged from the hospital to her entire satisfaction and she gave declaration to the hospital duly signed by her and she remained visiting  the hospital for free follow up check up/treatment. On the other hand, the case of Sita Rani was altogether different. The details of breakup of the package meant for the complainant and other patient Sita Rani are being annexed separately. The complainant cannot claim or seek parity of treatment and expenses with the name patient Sita Rani. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as annexure C-1 to C-6 and close her                          evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs No.1 to 3 have also tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A alongwith documents as annexure R-1 to R-9 and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Undisputedly, the complainant had taken treatment from OP on 24.03.2017 and also paid an amount of Rs.17,000/- Annexure C5 and Rs.5260/- (Total amounting to Rs.22260/-). The plea of the complainant is that the OP had charged excess amount of Rs.13,500/- as he had charged Rs.7700/- and Rs.1060/- from another patient Sita Ram for the same treatment. The complainant and her husband visited the OP number of times and requested for refunding the excess charged amount but to no avail.

6.                On the other hand the counsel for the OP has pleaded that the complainant at her own approached the hospital for treatment in an emergency and on examination she was diagnosed as a patient of Phaco-morphic Glaucoma in left eye and her intra ocular was very high. After intra venous treatment (Monnitol) her intra ocular pressure was brought under control and patient operated in emergency on 24.03.2017 at 11.30 a.m. After surgery, patient was advised for L/E Cataract surgery with MICS. She was explained of the risks and post surgery follow ups and expenses thereof and she readily agreed to undergo emergency operation on the same day i.e. 24.03.2017 and after paying expense bills of hospitalization and operation and treatment / medicines, she was discharged from the hospital to her entire satisfaction and she gave declaration to the hospital duly signed by her and she remained visiting the hospital for free follow up check up/treatment. On the other hand the case of the patient Sita Rani  was altogether different, therefore, the breakup package meant for the complainant was also different and the complainant cannot claim or seek parity of treatment and expenses with the patient Sita Rani.

7.                          Annexure R1 i.e. detailed breakup of cataract package for complainant is as under:

Sr. No.	Sub Head	Actual cost	Amount charged	Less amount charged	Reason for higher package cost
1.	Operation charges	10000/-	10000/-	….	Technique used is mic. This is latest technique. Incision given is smaller Machine used is infinity-Cost of machine is higher i.e. Rs.35 lakhs This includes Doctor’s fees also.
2.	OT Charges	Rs.5150/-	Rs.4500/-	650/-	OT maintenance charges Rs.5500/- Consumable Cost Rs.2500/- Cost of Cassette used in machine Rs.2150/-
3.	Anesthesia Charges	Rs.500/-	Rs.500/-		Surgery is done with tropical anesthesia
4.	Doctor’s visit	Rs.500/-	Rs.500/-		This includes pre operative and post operative checkup by the doctor
5.	Nursing charges	Rs.500/-	Rs.500/-		Includes both pre operative and post operative charges
6.	Room Charges	Rs.1000/-	Rs.1000/-		………
7.	Cost of Intra Ocular	Rs.12700/-	Rs.5000/-	Rs.7700/-	Given concession of Rs.7700/- MRP 12700/-
	Total:	Rs.30350/-	Rs.22000/	Rs.8350

                   Annexure R2 i.e. detailed breakup of cataract package for Sita Rani is as under

Sr. No.	Sub Head	Actual cost	Reason for higher package cost
1.	Operation charges	Rs.4500/-	Technique used  Phaco an Old terchnique. Incision given is larger Machine used is oritile-cost of machine is less i.e. Rs.8 to R.10 lakhs
2.	O.T Charges	Rs.1000	OT maintenance  charges Rs.500 Consumable item Rs.500 used during operation
3.	Anesthesia Charges	Rs.700/-	Surgery is done with local anesthesia
4.	Doctor’s visit	Rs.500/-	This includes pre operated check up by the doctor
5.	Nursing charges	Rs.500/-	Includes both pre operative and post operative care
6.	Room Charges	Rs.500/-	Room rent Rs.1000/- concession given Rs.500/-
7.	Cost of Intra Ocular	Rs.1000/-	Given on concessional rate MRP is 5800/-
	Total	8700/-

 

8.                After going through the breakup cataract package details of patient Sita Rani and complainant one thing is clear that both the treatments given by the OP are totally different and the OP had charged as per the disease. Moreover, perusal of Annexure R3 reveals that the complainant had claimed for medical re-imbursement being a retired government employee but during the course of arguments complainant admitted that the reimbursement of the claim was not made by the department, therefore, she has to file the present complaint in order to make the loss good and if the amount would have been paid then she had not need to file the present complaint. It appears that the present complaint has been field with ulterior motive just to take undue advantage of benevolent provision of Consumer Protection Act which cannot be allowed. It is not the case of the complainant that the treatment given by the OP to her was without her consent and willingness rather the complainant is claiming parity with other patient Sita Rani. As per literature the operation was conducted by using the Mic technology which says that Microincision cataract surgery (MICS) an approach to cataract surgery through incision less than 1.8 mm with the purpose of reducing surgical invasivensess, improving at the same time surgical outcomes. The main confirmed advantages of MICS are the control and avoidance of surgically induced corneal astigmatism and the decrease of postoperative corneal aberrations. MICS has been demonstrated to be minimally traumatic surgery providing better postoperative outcomes than standard small incision phacoemulsification. MICS the most modern and adequate approach to minimally invasive cataract surgery. Phacoemulsification a technique of cataract extraction, utilizing high-frequency ultrasonic vibrations to fragment the lens combined with controlled irrigation to maintain normal pressure in the anterior chamber and suction to remove lens fragments and irrigating fluid.  A method of emulsifying and aspirating a cataract with a low-frequency ultrasonic needle.  In view of the above said literature it is clear that the operation conducted by the OP on the person of complainant as per new technology i.e. MIC technology and the technology used on the person of Sita Rani was quite old technology than the MIC. The Op is not a government institute being a private institute and it was open for it to claim/charge from the patient as per the treatment. It is ample clear from above literature that both the treatments given by the OP to complainant and Sita Rani are totally different, therefore, the complainant is ceased to raise a plea of parity with other patient who has been given treatment as per her disease and willingness. 

9.                In view of the above discussion that we do not find any deficiency on the part of the OP. Hence, there is no substance in the present complaint and Same is hereby dismissed. It is a fit case for imposing penalty upon the complainant for filing the present false and frivolous complaint to defame the OP who has been unnecessary dragged in this unwarranted litigation. Accordingly a cost of Rs.3000/- is imposed upon the complainant to be paid to the OP by the complainant within a period of 30 days. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

  Announced on: 17.07.2018

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                                   (D.N. ARORA)   

       Member                                                                     President