BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER 

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 452/2013 Filed on 25/10/2013

ORDER DATED: 18/05/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

The complainant is aged 67 and a retired employee from the Post of Jr.Telephone Officer, Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).  He was under treatment for urinary problems.  He is holder of medical identity card No.1251 dated 01/12/2012 for the period of one year issued by BSNL.  According to the MOU signed by the BSNL and the SUT Hospital authorities, the complainant is entitled to enjoy indoor treatment from the hospital managed by the opposite party.  For avail of treatment the AGM (Admn) Office of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited issued authorization letter dated 30/05/2013.  It is specifically stated in the letter that the patient is permitted to avail indoor treatment as per agreed rate specified in the BSNL MOU and the bill amount will be paid by the Account Officer(PC).  Therefore the hospital is not authorized to charge the patient for payment if any.  The hospital is liable to claim the whole treatment expenses from BSNL.  The complainant is the beneficiary of the scheme.  The certificate cited above is self explanatory with regard to the payment of bill for treatment.  Accordingly, the complainant hired service from the hospital controlled by the opposite party from 28/05/2013 to 01/06/2013.  The complainant was admitted in the hospital as per the advice of Dr.G.R.Bhahuleyan Nair on 28/05/2013 as impatient and stayed in the hospital up to 01/06/2013.  After relevant investigation, the surgery called TURP was done on 29/05/2013 and advised to discharged him on 01/06/2013 at 11.05 Hrs.  Immediately after the advice of the doctor to discharge the complainant, the hospital authorities instructed the complainant to remit Rs.8,488/- in addition to the final bill for Rs.38,417.28/-.  In addition to the amount noted in the bill No.IP/13-14/1840 dated 01/06/2013 for Rs.38,417.28/-, the opposite party compelled the complainant to pay Rs.8,488/-under the head of account Viz. IP advance.  The additional charges imposed on the complainant is unreasonable and unfair.  The complainant was not in a position to pay Rs.8,488/- on the spot.  Though the complainant requested to exempt him from the payment, the opposite party disallowed the request and detained the complainant without giving discharge Memo and thus he was trapped in the hospital till 05.16 PM on 01/06/2013.  The complainant suffered too much to pay the additional amount to the opposite party for getting discharge from the hospital.  Due to the pressure tactics of the hospital authorities the complainant arranged a taxi and sent a messenger to borrow money from one of his friends at Avanavanchery, forty Kilometers away, for interest @ 12% per month and paid the amount Rs.8,488/- in the counter at 5 PM and after that only the complainant got discharged.  The opposite party has encashed the total hospital expenses Rs.38,417.28/- from the BSNL as per the terms and conditions in the MOU.  The amount charged from the complainant is unfair and that the act would amounts to the deficiency in service.  The complainant sent a notice to the Managing Director SUT Hospital Trivandrum to refund the excess amount of Rs.8,488/- with interest a@ 12% within 30 days of the receipt of the letter.  The opposite party has accepted the notice on 11/07/2013, but nothing heard from his end till the date, hence the complaint. 

     Written statement submitted by the opposite party stating the following contentions.  The complainant Mr.K.Rajendran who was an employee of M/S.BSNL was treated in the opposite party Hospital as inpatient and was discharged on 01/06/2013.  According to the MOU signed between M/s.BSNL and the opposite party, M/s.BSNL will directly reimburse only at the CGHS package and or rates fixed and charges incurred for the service provided over and above the CGHS norms have to be borne by the patient himself.  A total amount of Rs.38,417.28 was incurred for the patient care services provided  and the same was billed vide bill No.IP/13-14/1840.  Therefore Rs.29,929.28/- is reimbursable by M/s.BSNL and the balance of Rs.8,488/- which forms part of the total bill is collected from the complainant.  M/s.BSNL will not reimburse the amount of Rs.8,488/- as per the terms of MOU and hence collected directly from the complainant.  Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the opposite party should have collected the said sum of Rs.8,488/- also from M/s.BSNL.  The allegation that the complainant was detained/trapped in the hospital till 5.16 pm on 01/06/2013 is baseless whereas the fact is that when the formalities of discharge were complete the complainant left the hospital.  The opposite party was not negligent and did not practice deceptively as alleged.  The allegation does not amounts to deficiency in service.  The amount of Rs.8,488/- that was collected from the complainant is absolutely not correct with the practice in vogue and the terms of MOU.  The complaint is not on the deficiency of service rendered but on the aspect of collection of consideration which is not attracted by the Consumer Protection Act.   

Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents.  Ext.P1 to P8 marked.  Complainant examined as PW1 and cross examined by opposite party.  Ext.D1 marked at the time of cross examination.  Opposite party filed chief affidavit.  Thereafter opposite party not present for cross examination and not marked documents.  Both parties filed argument note.

Issues to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the cost and relief?

Issues No.1&2:-  We perused relevant document on record.  Ext.P3 is the original receipt shows that IP advance for an amount of Rs.8,488/- received from complainant.  Ext.P4 shows the total bill amount for an amount of Rs.38,417/-.  In Ext.P2 mentioned that “Bill Will be restricted strictly according to MOU rates” and “Application for SSA limit Only”.  At the time of cross examination the opposite party has marked Ext.D1 through PW1 the photocopy of circular stated that the BSNLMRS with the SUT Hospital enter in to an agreement to be adhered to by both parties whose terms and conditions and applications.  But the opposite party had not produced evidence to prove that the terms and conditions were given to complainant.  Moreover opposite party was not present for cross examination.  The opposite party has not produced evidence to prove that any of the items included in Ext.P4 was omitted by BSNL.  If is an admitted fact that there is an agreement between the BSNL and opposite party to provide treatment to the employees including retired employees of BSNL on the basis of MOU signed by both parties.  The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has illegally collected Rs.8,488/- and detained the complainant more than six hours in the hospital for remittance of excess amount.  Hence from the available records, it is evident that the complainant has been defined from 11.05 am to 5.16pm. 

The BSNL is not required to pay anything to the complainant and there was no allegation against BSNL.  The main contention is to be considered is whether the opposite party has collected excess amount from complainant over and above the entire treatment charges claimed from BSNL.  Therefore BSNL is unnecessary party.  The particulars furnished in Ext.P3 is “IP Advance”, whereas the version of opposite party it is stated as non reimbursable amount.  But the opposite party failed to produce evidence to show that the complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.8,488/-.  The time noted in Ext.P4 is discharge dated 01/06/2013  13.34.  Ext.P5 01/06/2013 11.05 Ext.P3 01/06/2013 05.05pm.  According to the complainant he was detained in the hospital on 01/06/2013 11.05am to 5.16pm for want of Rs.8,488/-.  The opposite party has not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant.  Hence from the available records, it is evident that the complainant has been detained from 11.05 am to 5.16 pm.

In the above discussions we find that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  In the result complaint allowed we direct the opposite party to pay Rs.8,488/- with 6% interest from 01/06/2013 on the date of discharge to date of receipt of order and pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization.            

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 18^th day of May,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 452/2013

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT