By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:
Brief facts of the case:-
The complainant has filed the above complaint under section 12 of consumer protection act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant is that on 09-05-2016 his wife, Elsy fell down, sustained fracture on her right ankle, and had undergone treatment from the opposite party hospital including implantation. Dr.Lokesh.M, who treated complainant’s wife assured that the total expenses, including medicine for removal of implantation will be below Rs.18,000/-(Rupees eighteen thousand). Thus she got admitted in the hospital for removal of implantation on 27-11-2017 with IP No.49926. Otherwise, the complainant would have solicited another hospital to remove the implantation. During the period of treatment the hospital compelled the complainant to remit all the medical bills on the spot, which amounts a total of Rs.3,874/-. After the removal of implantation, the complainant’s wife discharged from there on 30-11-2017. At the time of discharge, the hospital issued a final bill of Rs.23,160/-. The cost of the material list in the final bill and the interim list were entirely different. In the final bill, the cost of each treatment details are specifically mentioned and is entirely different from the final bill dated 30-11-2017. In the final bill, the hospital had collected an excess of Rs.5,160/- than the amount assured by the Doctor, that is Rs.18,000/-. Apart from the said final bill amount of Rs.23,160/, the complainant was constrained to pay a separate Medical bill of Rs.3,874/-. Thus the hospital had collected an excess of Rs.9,034/- from the complainant. When the complainant enquired about the matter, the Manager ill treated the complainant and shouted him to pay the amount and get away. As there was no option left, the complainant remitted that bill amount. Thereafter, when the complainant requested to return the excess amount collected by the hospital, the Manager ill-treated the complainant by showering filthy words. The act of the opposite party is clear deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and against medical etiquette. The complainant has sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party to return the collected amount. But the opposite party sent a reply stating false allegations, but has not complied the demand of the notice. The Opposite Party has caused great melancholy to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed the above number petition seeking return of excess amount of Rs.9034/- with 12 % interest till realization and Rs.50,000/- towards the loss, damages, inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, sufferings and Rs.10,000/- towards cost.
3. The Opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The main contentions of the opposite party are as follows:-
4. The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is ill framed, ill advised, frivolous, vexatious, devoid of truth and bona fides, and filed solely for undue financial advantages of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party admitted the treatment of the complainant’s wife for removal of implantation. But denied the allegation regarding the collection of excess amount for the treatment. The opposite party had charged only standard rate of amount for the treatment. The allegation that Dr.Lokesh had assured that the total treatment cost including medicine and removal of implantation will be less than Rs.18,000/- is not correct and is not known to the opposite party and not correct and denied by the opposite party. Dr.Lokesh has left the hospital. The expenses for rendering treatment of a patient is not decided by the doctors, the expenses are decided on the basis of the cost of the medicine, equipments, type of the treatments and diseases, it is differs from patient to patient and illness to illness and treatment to treatment. The opposite party never charges excess amount or exorbitant amount from the patients, the opposite party had not given any assurance about the amount of expenses which would incur for removing the implantation. The allegation regarding the difference in the amount shown in the interim bill and the final bill is denied by the opposite party. The allegation regarding the ill treatment and misbehaviour from the manager’s party also denied by the opposite party and prayed for the dismissal of the petition with cost of the opposite party.
5. The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination in support of his claim and examined as PW-1 and Ext. A-1 and A-2 were marked. Dr.Lokesh was examined as PW-2 and Ext. A-3 series were marked.
6. On the side of Opposite Party Sabu Joseph, General Manager of the Opposite Party hospital was examined as OPW-1 and exhibits B-1 to B-10 were marked. Both sides were heard and the documents were perused.
7. Now the points arise for considerations are-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether the opposite party had charged any excess amount from the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service, negligence from opposite party’s side?
- Whether the complainant is entitled get any amount from the opposite party as compensation..?
- Relief and cost.
8. Point No. 1 to 5 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity all the above points are considered together.
9. Ongoing through the pleadings and evidences adduced by both the sides it can be ascertained that the admission of the complainant’s wife in the opposite party’s hospital, the course of treatment they had taken and the amount charged are undisputed facts. The only and the main dispute is whether the opposite party hospital charged any excess or more amount than they assured to the complainant. On verification of the documents and statements and deposition, it could understand that the complainant did not inquire about the amount of treatment with the hospital management and asked only to the doctor. The complainant testified that his second visit to the hospital for removal of the implant was one and a half years after the injury. And there were no complaints about the first treatment or the bills, and that he enquired about the cost of removal of implantation to the doctor only, he did not talk to the hospital management about the cost of treatment. PW-1 categorically said that he did not enquire to the hospital management about the cost. Dr.Lokesh, PW-2 also deposed that treatment charge and other charges are usually decided by the hospital management and not the doctor. In the chief examination PW-2 stated that “Elsy’s case amount Rm³ ]dªn«nÃ.” Also in cross he deposed that “Rm³ hospital se employee Bbncp¶p. employee F¶ \nebv¡v hospital charge fix sN¿p¶ role R§Ä¡v CÃ. Fsâ operation charge AÃmsX thsd Hcp charge-Dw fix sN¿m³ F\n¡v A[nImcw CÔ. So it can be obviously presumed that the authority to fix the rate and charges is the hospital management and the complainant never enquired about this with the management. PW-2 is none other than the doctor who treated the complainant’s wife, says that he did not talk to the complainant about the amount. It is only his fault that the complainant did not inquire directly at the hospital about the hospital expenses.
10. The next allegation was that the complainant was insulted and has deficiency in service and grabbed exonerate amount from him. But the complainant did not produced any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate his contention. He can call for documents from another hospital to show that the charges levied by the opposite party were unreasonable. The complainant has not produced any witness other than the Doctor who treated the patient.
11. From the available evidences and testimony, it can be concluded that the complainant has not produced any documents or witnesses to prove these allegations and therefore it can be presumed that there were no deficiency in service or unfair trade practices on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant failed to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence and testimony. Therefore, the above number complaint is liable to dismissed.
In the result the complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of July 2021.
Date of Filing: 10.01.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. George. Farmer.
PW2. Dr. Lokesh. Orthopaedic Surgeon.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Sabu Joseph. General Manager.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Lawyer Notice. Dt:05.12.2017.
A2. Reply Notice. Dt:20.12.2017.
A3(Series). In-patient Record (40 pages).
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
B1. Final Bill. Dt:30.11.2017.
B2. Pharmacy Bill. Dt:27.11.2017.
B3. Pharmacy Bill. Dt:28.11.2017.
B4. Pharmacy Bill. Dt:28.11.2017.
B5. Pharmacy Bill. Dt:29.11.2017.
B6. Pharmacy Bill. Dt:29.11.2017.
B7. Pharmacy Bill. Dt:30.11.2017.
B8. Advance Receipt. Dt:28.11.2017.
B9. Advance Receipt. Dt:28.11.2017.
B10. Advance Receipt. Dt:29.11.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRC, WAYANAD.
