Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/151/2022

PARVEEN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HEALING MULTI-SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AND INSTITUTE OF PARAMEDICAL SCIENCES AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL ADV.

30 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Appeal No	:	A/151/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	15/11/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	30/11/2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parveen w/o Sh.Manoj Kumar, Resident of H.No.111, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh.

 

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.   Healing Multi-Speciality Hospital & Institute of Paramedical Sciences, through its Partner/ Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory, having its Regd. Address at SCO 16-17-18-19, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

 

2.   The Principal Employer/ Proprietor/ Partner/ Authorized Signatory of Healing Multi-Speciality Hospital & Institute of Paramedical Sciences, having its Regd. Address at SCO 16-17-18-19, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022.

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY            PRESIDING MEMBER

          MR. RAJESH K. ARYA           MEMBER

          Mr. PREETINDER SINGH         MEMBER

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.10.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/723/2021, in the following terms:-

“10. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
2. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.  This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr. No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(ii) above.”

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Appellant/Complainant that she opted for premium package mentioned in the pamphlet provided by Respondents/Opposite Parties and paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- in advance on 02.05.2021 to them. The Appellant/Complainant was admitted in the hospital of the Respondents/Opposite Parties for delivery and on the same day baby was born to her. The Appellant/ complainant got discharged from the hospital of Respondents/Opposite Parties on 02.05.2021 and had paid bill amounting to Rs.42,730/-. It was the allegation of the Appellant/Complainant that the Respondents/Opposite Parties failed to provide the services with regard to ‘room decoration’ & ‘baby photo-shoot and album’ at the time of delivery. The Appellant/complainant contacted the Respondents/ Opposite Parties number of times, through mobile phone calls and also visited the hospital several times for the deficiency in the services at the time of delivery, but they dilly dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. Eventually, the Appellant/ complainant sent a legal notice to the Respondents/ Opposite Parties, but to no avail. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

3.      The Respondents/Opposite Parties were duly served, but they did not appear, as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte by the Ld. Lower Commission vide order dated 27.05.2022.

 

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the Complaint of the Appellant/ Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.    

 

5.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

 

6.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

8.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

9.      The Appellant claims that despite, spending an amount of Rs.40,000/- for the purpose of availing the premium maternity packages including gift hamper, room decoration and baby footprint alongwith baby photo-shoot and album, she was deprived of photo-shoot of special moment of her child in a decorated hospital room by Respondents. Record transpires that the contents of the basic package opted by the Complainant have duly been noticed by the Ld. Lower Commission in Para No.6 of its order. By means of present appeal, the Appellant has claimed refund of the bill amount of Rs.42,730/- and enhancement of the compensation, damages for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. Admittedly, the Appellant was admitted in the Hospital of the Respondents for delivery and on the same day, baby was born to her. There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellant got discharged from the hospital of the Respondents on 02.05.2021 after paying bill of Rs.42,730/-. The Respondents thus charged the Appellant for the services rendered by them with regard to her maternity treatment. In this view of the matter, we are afraid to pass such orders for refund of aforesaid Rs.42,370/- as prayed for and the prayer of the Appellant qua the same is hereby declined.        

 

10.      Per material on record, the Ld. District Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh has partly allowed the Complaint by ordering the Respondents to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Appellant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her, besides payment of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation, after holding that the Respondents were deficient in providing proper services to the Appellant. However, in the appeal, the Appellant has also sought increase in the compensation amount and litigation expenses totalling to Rs.2,00,000/-. Needless to mention here, the Appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to show how she had suffered the loss of that amount. In this backdrop, this Commission finds that such kind of compensation cannot be allowed to be paid by the Respondents as for whatever deficiency the Respondents have committed, they have been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of proceedings to the Appellant. In our view the amount claimed by the Appellant is highly exaggerated. It is, thus, safe to deduce that nothing more in this regard is payable to the Appellant/Complainant.

 

11.      No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Appellant.

 

12.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed in limine.

 

13.      In view of the present Appeal being dismissed, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

 

14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

15.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

30^th Nov., 2022                                Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

                                  (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”