Punjab

StateCommission

FA/1269/2013

M/s Kehal Trauma Centre - Complainant(s)

Versus

Laxmi Devi - Opp.Party(s)

Ashwani Talwar

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1269 of 2013

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 22.11.2013      

                                                          Date of Decision : 10.08.2015

 

M/s Kehal Trauma Centre, Opposite Railway Station, Nangal Dam, District Ropar through its Proprietor Dr. J.S.S Kehal, MS (Ortho).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           …..Appellant/ Opposite Party                                         

                                      Versus

 

Laxmi Devi wife of Nand Lal, aged about 70 years, through her son Som Nath son of Nand Lal, resident of Village Passiwal, Tehsil Nangal District Ropar.

 

                                                                                                                                                … Respondent / Complainant

 

First Appeal against order dated 23.09.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                      : Sh.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate  

          For the respondent no.             : Ex-parte.

 

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

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 23.09.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ropar, accepting the complaint of the complainant and directing the OP to pay 5000/-, as compensation for mental harassment to complainant, besides Rs.2,000/- , as costs of litigation. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OP now appellant in this appeal.

2.      The complainant Laxmi Devi has filed  the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP, on the averments that her son has been working as Structure Fitter in the Nangal Workshop Division BBMB Nagal Township. The said BBMB Department has extended the medical facilities for its employees, as well as, dependents of the employee. The OP ran their hospital at Railway Road Nagal Township under the name and style of M/s Kehal Trauma Center and Dr. J.S.S. Kehal is proprietor of the said hospital. The complainant suffered from some fracture of dislocation of hip joint and she consulted the OP on 06.03.2013 at their hospital. The OP suggested for operation of hip joint to the complainant. On the advice of the OP, complainant was admitted in the hospital of OP on 08.03.2013 and she was operated on 09.03.2013. She remained admitted in the OP's hospital up to 14.03.2013 for further medical management and was discharged on 14.03.2012. For further consultation, the complainant along with his son again visited the hospital of OP on 18.03.2012 and OP  charged Rs.150/-, as consultation fee and no receipt thereof was given to him. No diagnosis or illness has been mentioned even on the prescription slip by the OP on 18.03.2013. The complainant was asked to deposit Rs.80,000/- for all medical charges including operation charges. The complainant deposited the said amount with OP and OP gave assurance that after the completion of operation and treatment of the complainant, the OP would finalize the account and then to provide the receipt and detail of all the medical expenses along with the discharge slip at the time of discharge. The complainant was discharged on 14.03.2013, but OP has not given the details of medical expenses and even excess amount, out of the total deposited amount of Rs.80,000/- and it has not been refunded back to the complainant.  The BBMB Authorities have also extended the indoor medical facilities to its employee or dependents on their family. The OP was legally bound to finalize the account of Rs.80,000/-  and to provide the medical expenses detail and to refund the excess amount to complainant. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.80,000/- by issuing medical bills of expenses and discharge slip, besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. 

3.      Upon notice, OP filed written reply raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant is guilty of suppression of facts and is not entitled to any relief. On merits, OP admitted the fact regarding the ailment of the complainant, admission in the hospital, date of operation and discharge from the OP hospital. It was further pleaded that OPD fee of the OP is only Rs.100/- and not as Rs.150/-, as wrongly alleged in the complaint. It was further pleaded that total expenditure is  to the tune of Rs.32,000/- for such type of operation approximately. It was further pleaded that complainant has not paid the amount of Rs.80,000/- to OP. OP pleaded that each and everything has been duly provided to the complainant at the time of his discharge from the hospital, which are required for the reimbursement of the bills by the employer of the son of the complainant. It was further pleaded that son of the complainant wanted the exaggerated amount of bill to the tune of Rs.80,000/- for getting higher reimbursement thereof from his employer department/OP. OP did not accede to it and hence the instant complaint has been wrongly filed by the complainant out of that grudge against it. The OP denied other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, affidavit of Som Nath son of the complainant Ex.C-2, affidavit of Mohinder Singh Ex.C-5 along with copies of documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-7. As against it, OP tendered in evidence the affidavit of Dr. Jassimran Singh Kehal C/o Dr. Kehal Trauma Center Ex.OP-1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ropar, accepted the claim of the complainant by directing OP to deliver the final bill and prescription slip to complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment to her, besides Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation as well. The OP now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, as none appeared for the respondent in this appeal and respondent has been set ex-parte in this case. We have examined the record of the case carefully along with the evidence on the file. The affidavit of complainant is Ex.C-1 on the record in support of her averments. Affidavit of  Som Nath son of complainant is Ex.C-2 on the record. Ex.C-3 is the prescription slip dated 18.03.2013. Ex.C-4 is receipt of Rs. 1050/- paid by the complainant to Shri Sai Diagnostic Centre, fully computerized laboratory. Ex.C-5 is affidavit of Mohinder Singh on the record. Ex.C-6 is statement of account of Mohinder Singh. Ex.C-7 is legal notice sent to OP.

6.      In rebuttal evidence thereto, OP tendered in evidence, the affidavit of Dr. Jassimran Singh Kehal, empanelled by the hospital of OP by National Fertilizer Limited Ex.OP-2. Ex.OP-3 is approved rate list for orthopedic treatments. Ex.OP-4 is estimated bill of Dayanand Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana of Pankaj Mahindra.

7.      From evaluation of the above-referred evidence on the record and hearing respective submissions of counsel for the appellant, we find that it is imperative for the complainant to prove that the amount of Rs.80,000/- was paid to OP. Except the bald affidavit of complainant, which stood equally rebutted by counter affidavit of OP, there is no other document or evidence aliunde on the record to prove that the payment of Rs.80,000/- was paid by the complainant to OP. Even the statement of account Ex.C-6,  nowhere shows that the amount of Rs.80,000/- was withdrawn from the account of Mohinder Singh. Generally the amount of more than of Rs.50,000/- is paid through the mode of payment either through cheques, drafts or Real Time Gross Settlement System. Herein, there is nothing on the record to establish this fact that complainant paid the amount of Rs.80,000/- to OP. Mere allegation of the complainant on the basis of bald affidavit of complainant, which stands equally rebutted by the affidavit of OP, it would not prove this fact that complainant paid Rs.80,000/- to OP. Wherefrom the amount of Rs.80,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant  and from what source, it has not been proved on the record. In the absence of any cogent evidence to this effect on the record, we are unable to agree with the submission of counsel for the complainant, as raised in the complaint that amount of Rs.80,000/- was paid to OP with regard to the fact that OP has not rendered the bills to the complainant, as paid for in this case. There is affidavit of OP that he has submitted the bills to BBMB the employer of son of the complainant, wherewith OP is empanelled as Ortho Surgeon. OP is proved to be empanelled with the employer of the son of the complainant on the record, vide documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 on the record. OP has pleaded and proved in his affidavit the charges for replacement of hip joint to the tune of Rs.32,000/- . OP has also produced on record Ex.OP-4 bill of DMC Ludhiana supporting his assertion, when the bill was submitted by OP to BBMB, which was its employer and as such we do not find any force in the submission of complainant that no such bill was render to her. OP has submitted that Rs.32,000/- was charged for replacement of the hip joint, which are the approved charges therefor. We find force in the contention of the OP now appellant in this appeal that son of the complainant wanted the exaggerated bill to the extent of Rs.80,000/-, so that he could claim higher reimbursement from his employer. The OP had not obliged him and due to this reason, the instant complaint has been filed against OP out of that grudge. We do not agree with the findings of the District Forum recorded in the order under challenge in this case. The order of the District Forum Ropar dated 23.09.2013  is accordingly ordered to be set aside exparte in this appeal by reversing it.

8.      As a result of our above discussion, we exparte accept the appeal of the appellant and by setting aside the order of the District Forum Ropar dated 23.09.2013 under challenge in this appeal, the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.

9.      The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.3500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the appellant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 05.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

August 10,  2015.                                                          

(ravi)