Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

Consumer Complaint No. : 425

Instituted on : 28.07.2022

Decided on : 23.10.2024

Gulab Singh (Retired Science Master) age, 73 years, R/o VPO Atawla, District Panipat.

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Vs

Holy Heart Super Speciality and Trauma Center 330, Vinay Nagar, Delhi Bye Pass Road, Rohtak, through Dr. Ankur Agarwal.

.....Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.ParveenPhougat, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Sanjeev Batra, Adv. for oppositeparty.

                                      ORDER

SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that his son Sanjeet Singh was admitted to the hospital of opposite party (Holy Heart Super Specialty and Trauma Center) from 18.04.2021 to 04.05.2021 for COVID-19 treatment. The hospital is empanelled under the State of Haryana medical scheme.Being retired government servant, the complainant submitted the bills issued by the opposite party to the state of Haryana for reimbursement. Upon scrutiny of the bills, state government found that several charges under different heads were not admissible including Rs.1,08,000/- for isolation I.C.V. charge, Rs.6,000/- for isolation charge and other excessivecharges for medical supervision, doctor visit, oxygen, pathology, RBS with Glucometer and X-Rays. The total amount of Rs.2,38,384/- was illegally charged from the complainant. The complainant also discovered that other patients admitted to the same hospital during the same period were charged less for similar treatment. The complainant approached the opposite party to seek a refund of excess charges but opposite party refused to do so.The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,41,384/- alongwith  interest, Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.11000 for litigation cost to the complainant.
2.           After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written statementsubmittingtherein that the complainant has filed the present complaint just to malign the prestige of the hospital and to abstract money from the opposite party. The opposite party admitted the facts regarding the admission of the son of the complainant on 18.04.2021 due to COVID-19 and his discharge on 04.05.2021 from the hospital and denied the allegations that Rs.2,38,384/- were charged in excess and stated that all charges were levied as per the hospital policy. The opposite party asserted that the claim of Rs.1,08,000/- for “isolation ICV charges” and Rs. 6,000/- for “isolation charges” being excessive is false.It is further denied that for medical supervision, doctor visit, file charges, oxygen charges, Pathology charges, pathology, RBS with Glucometer and X-rays were charged in the tune of Rs.3400/-, Rs.200/-, Rs.13000/-, Rs.17684/-, Rs.4500/- and Rs.1000/- respectively, however, these were all non-admissible and that is why amount under these heads was not reimbursed. During COVID-19 pandemic,as per guidelines of the Government, the hospitals were required to reserve 60% beds as per government norms whereas the remaining 40% of beds were occupied by hospital itself. The complainant is charged as per hospital policy and no excess amount is charged by the opposite party. The hospital did not charge anything over and above its policy rates.There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.Hence, complainant is not entitled for any relief and opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with specific costs.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-35 and closed his evidence on 01.08.2023. On the other hand, the learned counsel for opposite party in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and also tendered documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R3 in additional evidence and closed his evidence on 10.04.2024.

4.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                 In the present case grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has charged excess amount from the complainant on account of treatment of his son in their hospital. On the other hand contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party is that according to the notification/guidelines Endst.no.3PM(COVID)/2020/9047-9097 dated 25.06.2020 of the Govt. of Haryana(Department of Health and Family welfare) 60% of Covid beds were to be reserved/occupied as per government norms whereas the remaining 40% of beds were occupied by hospital itself and charged accordingly. It is further contended that when the complainant got admitted in their hospital, at that time, 60% of the Covid beds in Hospital were already occupied by the other Covid patients and the complainant was admitted in the remaining 40% of the Covid beds of hospital. To prove its contention opposite party has placed on record copy of Endst.no.3PM(COVID)/2020/9047-9097 dated 25.06.2020 of the Govt. of Haryana(Department of Health and Family welfare) as Ex.R1. We have minutely perused the ‘IPD Department Wise Detail Report’ placed on record by the respondent as Ex.R2 dated 18.04.2021. The total strength of beds of indoor patients in the hospital on dated 18.04.2021 was 82 and on that day 9 fresh Indoor patients have been admitted in the hospital. Prior to this, 73 patients were already admitted. Meaning thereby on dated 18.04.2021 the Sr. Number of the complainant comes after 73 and his admission was under critical care. In this category, the total 54 patients were admitted and as per report Ex.R2, his serial number was 51. As per Govt. guidelines mentioned above, 60% of Covid beds were to be reserved/occupied as per government norms whereas the remaining 40% of beds were occupied by hospital itself and charged accordingly. Meaning thereby 60% beds were already occupied by the covidpatients. Hence the son of complainant was admitted under private category and was charged accordingly.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that no excess amount has been charged from the complainant by the opposite party and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

7.                Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

23.10.2024.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ………………………………..

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member