DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/145

Date of Institution   : 22.02.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 04.07.2022

Pardeep Kumar Parmar son of Sh. Subash Chander Parmar resident of 1822-A/14, Guru Ramdass Nagar, Opp. Railway Workshop, Putlighar, Amritsar.   

                …Complainant Versus

Manbir Drug Store through its Prop./Partner/Principle Officer I/s Randhawa Hospital, Mall Road, Amritsar.   

               …Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

 

Present: Sh. Ajay Shanker Adv counsel for complainant with complainant.

Sh. S.S. Jammu Adv counsel for opposite party.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member 

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT): 

 

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against the Manbir Drug Store (hereinafter referred as opposite party)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the mother of the complainant was suffering heart problem and she was got admitted in Randhawa Hospital, 12-The Mall Road Amritsar on 18.1.2018, where Coronary Angiography was done on 19.1.2018, having IPD No. 0911-01351 and discharged on 20.1.2018. Thereafter, she was got admitted in IVY Hospital, Airport Road, Amritsar where she expired on 22.1.2018. It is further alleged that during the course of treatment in Randhawa Hospital, the complainant purchased medicines from the opposite party as per requirement and prescription slips issued by the concerned doctor of Randhawa Hospital and made payment directly to the opposite party for which the opposite party issued In PATIENT ISSUE DETAILS dated 18.1.2018 to 20.1.2018. The complainant was surprised to read the details of medicines and its price charged. In bill No. 118010359 dated 20.1.2018 the opposite party has shown sale of 5 Duolin RESP with MRP Rs. 1059.00 each and charged Rs. 5295/- from the complainant. Similarly in bill No. 118010362 dated 20.1.2018 the opposite party shown sale of 5 Duolin RESP with MRP Rs. 1059.00 each and charged Rs. 5295/- from the complainant and in total the opposite party charged Rs. 10,590/- from the complainant for 10-DUOLIN REP. It is alleged that the actual MRP of one DUOLIN REP is only Rs. 10.59p and for 10 DUOLIN REP it comes to Rs. 105.90p but the opposite party charged excess of Rs. 10484.10p from the complainant. The complainant has taken photograph of the empty injection. It is further alleged that the complainant brought the above said fact of charging excess amount in bill to the notice of the Incharge of opposite party medical store, but they could not give satisfactory reply and rather tried to create embarrassment to the complainant. The above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To refund the amount of Rs. 10484.10p alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of bill till final payment. 

ii) To pay Rs. 30,000/-  as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment along litigation expenses.    

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement. It is alleged by the opposite party that whatever medicines supplied by the replying opposite party on the prescription of concerned doctors to the room of the patient were duly entered in the computer at the time of supply and the bill which was produced by the complainant was not a final bill as it was only computer printout of the medicines supplied to the room of the patient  as per prescription. It is further submitted that bill No. 118010359 dated 20.1.2018 and bill No. 118010362 dated 20.1.2018 were not final bills but only printout of the medicines supplied and it was crossed/cancelled and computer feeding mistake in the rate of DUOLIN RESP was rectified at the time of issue of provisional bill by the Hospital and in that bill total expenses of the medicines charges was Rs. 3026.15 and rectification of mistake is clear from the detail of medicines as given in Hospital overall bill. It is denied that the opposite party had charged Rs. 10590/- from the complainant for 10-DUOLIN RESP. It is admitted that MRP of one DUOLIN RESP is Rs. 10.59p and for 10 DUOLIN RESP  the opposite party charged Rs. 105.90p in the final rectified bill. All other allegations are denied by the opposite party and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of the angiography report Ex.C-2, copy of the municipal death notification form Ex.C-3, copy of the inpatient bill Ex.C-4, copy of the packing cover of injection showing the price of the injection Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. 

5. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Harneesh Randhawa, Prop. Manbir Drug Store Ex.O.P1, hospital bill Ex.O.P2 and closed the evidence. 

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. 

7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the mother of the complainant was suffering from heart problem and was got admitted in Randhawa Hospital, 12-The Mall Road Amritsar on 18.1.2018, where Coronary Angiography was done on 19.1.2018, having IPD No. 0911-01351 Ex.C-2 and discharged on 20.1.2018 and thereafter she was got admitted in IVY Hospital, Airport Road, Amritsar where she expired on 22.1.2018 Ex.C-3. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that during the treatment in Randhawa Hospital, the complainant purchased medicines from the opposite party as per requirement and prescription slips issued by the concerned doctors of Randhawa Hospital and made payment directly to the opposite party for which the opposite party issued In PATIENT ISSUE DETAILS bill (Cash) dated 18.1.2018 to 20.1.2018 Ex.C-4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also argued that the complainant was surprised to read the details of medicines and its price charged in bill No. 118010359 dated 20.1.2018 the opposite party has shown sale of 5 Duolin RESP with MRP Rs. 1,059.00 and charged Rs. 5295/- from the complainant and in bill No. 118010362 dated 20.1.2018 the opposite party shown sale of 5 Duolin RESP with MRP Rs. 1,059.00 and charged Rs. 5295/- from the complainant and in total the opposite party charged Rs. 10,590/- from the complainant for 10-DUOLIN REP. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that the actual MRP of one DUOLIN RESP is only Rs. 10.59p and for 10 DUOLIN REP it comes to Rs. 105.90p which shows from Ex.O.P2, but the opposite party charged excess of Rs. 10,484.10p from the complainant. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that the complainant has taken photograph of the empty injection cover Ex.C-5, which shows the price of 5 duolin (5x2.5ml) as Rs. 52.95. Ld. Counsel for complainant also argued that the complainant brought the above said fact of charging excess amount in bill to the notice of the Incharge of opposite party medical store, but they could not give satisfactory reply and rather tried to create embarrassment to the complainant, as such there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party proved writ large.

8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party argued that the medicines supplied by the opposite party on the prescription of concerned doctors to the room of the patient were duly entered in the computer and the bill which was produced by the complainant was not a final bill as it was only computer printout of the medicines supplied to the room of the patient as per prescription. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for opposite party that bill No. 118010359 dated 20.1.2018 and bill No. 118010362 dated 20.1.2018 were not final bills but only printout of the medicines supplied and it was crossed/cancelled and computer feeding mistake in the rate of DUOLIN RESP which was rectified at the time of issue of provisional bill by the Hospital and in that bill total expenses of the medicines charges was shown Rs. 3026.15. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for opposite party that the opposite party had not charged Rs. 10590/- from the complainant for 10-DUOLIN RESP. 

9. From the perusal of the cash bills dated 18.1.2018 to 20.1.2018 Ex.C-4 it is proved that the opposite party on 20.1.2018 has charged for 10 Duolin RESP Rs. 10,590/- from the complainant, whereas the actual MRP of one DUOLIN RESP is only Rs. 10.59p and for 10 DUOLIN REP it comes to Rs. 105.90p and the opposite party charged excess of Rs. 10,484.10p from the complainant and this fact is proved from Ex.C-4 and Ex.O.P2. Further, the complainant has placed on record photograph of the empty injection cover Ex.C-5, which shows the price of 5 duolin (5x2.5ml) as Rs. 52.95. The opposite party admitted in reply that the bill Ex.C-4 was prepared by the opposite party on the prescription slips of concerned doctors. On the perusal of  evidence produced by the parties it is established that the Ex.O.P2 bill was issued by the Randhawa Hospital and the opposite party has separate chemist shop from the Hospital. The said bill Ex.O.P2 produced by the opposite party is after thought document. The opposite party admitted in the written version that the complainant has paid the charges of Hospital.  Therefore, it is proved on the file that there is clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party and the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 10,484/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 5,500/- on account of compensation and Rs. 3,300/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties free of costs by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. 

 

File be sent back to District Consumer Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       4th Day of July, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member