Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/715

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER - Complainant(s)

Versus

F X LIES - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2018

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 715 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 23.05.2016 passed in C.C.No.353/2012 by the District Forum, Indore)  

 

CHIEF MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT,

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY HOSPITAL, RATLAM & ANR.                                        …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

F.S.LOUIS.                                                                                                            …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGARWAL                                  :      MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK                                     :      MEMBER                

 

                                      O R D E R

03.11.2018

 

          Shri H. S. Rajput, learned counsel for appellants.

            Shri P. N. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent.

             

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar : 

                       This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore in C.C.No.353/2012.

2.                     The challenge of the appellant to impugned order is on the ground that the Forum has committed error in directing the appellants to pay Rs.62,728/- to respondent as according to appellant in view of Circular dated 31.01.2007 available at Page 150 of the record, expenses incurred in treatment in private hospital can only be paid in “Aapaat Stihiti”.

3.                     We have gone through the said circular. “Aapaat Stihiti” is described in it as under:

            ^^vkikr fLFkfr^^ ls vk’k; fdlh dkj.k ls dksbZ Hkh gkykr ;k y{k.k vpkud mRiUu gksus ij rFkk ftldk rqjUr mipkj u djk, tkus ij jksxh ds LokLF; ds fy, gkfudj gksxk ;k jksxh ds thou ds fy, [krjukd gksxkA dqN mnkgj.k bl izdkj gSa %& lM+d nq?kZVuk] vU; izdkj dh nq?kZVuk,a] xaHkhj g`n;k?kkr vkfn] ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] tc jsyos ykHkkFkhZ dks ,slk vuqHko gks fd izkf/kd`r jsyos fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh dks fjiksVZ djus dh dksbZ laHkouk ugha gS vkSj og fdlh utnhdh izkf/kd`r jsyos fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh dks fjiksVZ djus dh dksbZ laHkkouk ugha gS vkSj og fdlh utnhdh rFkk mi;qDr futh vLirky esa mipkj djk ysrk gS rks izfriwfrZ nkoksa ij izkf/kd`r jsyos fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh }kjk dk;kZsRrj vkikr fLFkfr dh iqf"V fd, tkus ds ckn ‘eatwjh ds fy, dk;ZokbZ dh tk ldrh gS]A

 

3.                     It is not in dispute that the appellants have already paid Rs.62,700/- to the respondent towards expenses incurred in the hospitalization treatment of his wife in private hospital for the kidney ailment.  The amount which has been ordered to be paid by the impugned order relates to medicines purchased for treatment of Kidney ailment caused to respondent’s wife.  When the appellants have paid amount of hospitalization to the extent of Rs.62,700/- for the said period, for the bills of medicines of Rs.62,728/- cannot be denied taking the shelter of the said circular.

 

-2-

4.                     In this view of the matter we do not find that the District Forum has committed any error in directing the appellants to pay Rs.62,728/- towards medical expenses incurred in treatment of respondent’s wife.

5.                     As a result, we dismiss the appeal.

 

 

    (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)      (S. D. Agarwal)       (Dr. Monika Malik)              

                   President                                  Member                     Member