Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/215/2022

MUNENDER MANN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAX HOSPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

RBT/Complaint Case No. 215/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

		Sh. Munender Mann S/o Sh. Charan Singh R/o H.No. 1466 VPO Ali Pur, Delhi		Complainant
		Versus
		Management Max Hospital FC 50, C & D Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		20.09.18 07.02.24 04.07.24

14.02.

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party alleging deficiency in services.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 23.09.16 Complainant’s father was admitted in Max Hospital Shalimar Bagh with IPID No. 97350 at bed no. MICU 01, for treatment under the supervision of Dr. Inder Mohan Chug. The Complainant stated that after issuance of the bill he was shocked as Opposite Party raised forged and fabricated bill against treatment of his father as according to bill dated 24.09.16,  Opposite Party raised bill of dated 22.09.16 at serial 67 as equipment charges of Rs. 2,580/- which was same as repeated bill dated 26.09.16 and Opposite Party raised bill of dated 22.09.16 at serial no. 95 as equipment charges of Rs. 2,580/- whereas the father of Complainant was admitted in hospital on 23.09.16. Thereafter Complainant brought to the notice to Opposite Party regarding forged and fabricated bills and management of hospital admitted their mistake and modified the bill. Thereafter, Complainant carefully scanned entire bill and he came to know that hospital raised false and fabricated bills against the many items. It is alleged that the father of Complainant was admitted on ventilator on 23.09.16 and ventilator was removed on 24.09.16 and shifted to HUD on 25.09.16 and thereafter shifted to ward on 26.09.16 but management of hospital raised bill as ventilator charges dated 25.09.16 two times and also charged for ventilator for 26.09.16 at serial no. 102, 104 and 108 in bill dated 26.09.16 at 5.34 p.m. The Complainant also stated that hospital raised the bill at serial no. 101 and 103 for oxygen charges for dated 25.09.16 of bill dated 26.09.16 or at serial no. 103 and 105 for oxygen charges for dated 25.09.16 of bill dated 27.09.16 or at final bill at serial no. 102 and 103 for oxygen charges for dated 25.09.16 of bill dated 27.09.16 while clearly mentioned as oxygen charges for 24 hours but both the items clearly show that both the charges of oxygen for the same day. Thereafter Complainant again brought to the notice of management regarding forged and fabricated bills but management of Opposite Party instead of correcting the bill raised one again issued forged and fabricated bill. Complainant had also lodged complaint at Police Station Shalimar Bagh on 16.11.16 bearing DD no. 55 B but local police did not take any action against Opposite Parties. The Complainant had also sent Complaint to area concerned DCP, ACP and police commissioner of Delhi dated 14.12.16 by post but all in vain. Hence this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed to refund of Rs. 50,000/- which was charges extra by the hospital and Rs. 10,00,000/- for mental harassment.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. Opposite Party submits that the Complainant’s father was attended and treated by Opposite Party and discharged in stable condition. It is contended that those bills were not meant to for payment as the same were only estimates of the final Bills. The contention of the Opposite Party is that the interim in patient bills are issued at the request of the patient which are used for reference only and subject to modification/alteration/amendment or deletion of the contents upon verification of the same with the concerned department until the final in-patent bill which is finally charged from the patient. It is submitted that in the present case, the Complainant has been charged only as per the Final In-patient Bill dated 27.09.2016 at 18.46 hours. Further, Opposite Party hospital contends that since the patient was on oxygen and Bipap support from date of admission i.e. 23.09.2016 till date of his discharge i.e. 27.09.2016 and the hospital. charges for oxygen on 24 hours basis, charges for one day is charged in case patient has been on support for less than 24 hours. Opposite Party admits that it is true that there are two entries for oxygen on 25.09.2016 but contends that they did not charge for oxygen on date of discharge i.e. 27.09.2016 as they had already charged on 25.09.2016. In view of above, the allegations are baseless and wrong, hence, the complaint be dismissed for being vexatious.

Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein  he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

4. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Dr. Archana Bajaj Medical Superintendent of Max Super Specialty Hospital, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party has been supported.

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

5. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
6. It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party hospital raised false and fabricated bills for the treatment of his father. It is also alleged that even in final bill, they were charged twice for the oxygen while charges for oxygen are on 24 hours basis. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant has been charged only as per the Final In-patient Bill dated 27.09.2016 at 18.46 hours. The Complainant has relied upon various interim bills, final bill and discharge summary of his father in support of his case.
7. The contention of Opposite Party is that interim in patient bills are issued at the request of the patient which are used for reference only and subject to modification/alteration/amendment or deletion of the contents upon verification of the same with the concerned department until the final in-patent bill gets issued. The perusal of file shows that the Complainant has paid only in accordance with the final Bill dated 27.09.2016 at 18.46 hours and the Complainant has not disputed that bill except two entries dated pertaining to oxygen usage on 25.09.2016. It is alleged by the Complainant that charges for oxygen on 24 hours basis and the Opposite Party has charged twice for same day. The defence of the Opposite Party hospital is that since the patient was on oxygen and Bipap support from date of admission i.e. 23.09.2016 till date of his discharge i.e. 27.09.2016 and the hospital charges for oxygen on 24 hours basis, charges for one day is charged in case patient has been on support for less than 24 hours. Opposite Party admits that it is true that there are two entries for oxygen on 25.09.2016 but contends that they did not charge for oxygen on date of discharge i.e. 27.09.2016 as they had already charged on 25.09.2016. The Complainant has not rebutted the contention of the Opposite Party that charges for one day is charged in case patient has been on support for less than 24 hours. The Complainant has also not denied that oxygen was used on date of discharge nor has the Complainant shown that he was charged for oxygen used on the date of discharge. The perusal of discharge summary reveals that the patient remained in hospital till 3.00 p.m. and he was advised to remain on oxygen support even after discharge. These facts clearly suggests that the Complainant’s father was on oxygen support on date of discharge i.e. 27.09.2016 and there is no entry in the final bills showing charges for oxygen on 27.09.2016, hence, the defence of Opposite Party is accepted.  Besides that, all the allegations regarding discrepancies in entries are in respect of Interim bills only for which he was never charged and made to pay, hence, no loss has been suffered by the Complainant. The Complainant has not been able to show any unjustified entry in the Final bill or any amount charged wrongly, hence, no deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Party can be seen by this Commission.
8. In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that Opposite Party has not been deficient in services towards the Complainant.
9. Thus, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Order announced on 04.07.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)          Member

(Adarsh Nain)         Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President