Haryana

StateCommission

CC/125/2015

CHARAN DASS - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEDANTA, THE MEDICITY - Opp.Party(s)

SUBHASH JINDAL

04 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Consumer Complaint No  : 125 of 2015

Date of Institution            :   24.07.2015

Date of Decision               :   04.08.2015

 

Charan Dass s/o Sh. Hem Raj, Resident of Ward No.1, Street No.2, Bahadurpur Road, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.

                                      Complainant

Versus

1.      Medanta, The Medicity, Sector 38, Gurgaon, Haryana, Pin-122001, India, through its Managing Director/ Chairman/ Competent person/ authorized person/ Manager.

 

2.      Global Health Private Limited, E-18, Defence Colony, New Delhi, 110024 India, through its Managing Director/Chairman/Competent person/authorized person.

 

3.      Dr. Naresh Trehan, Managing Director/Chairman/Director C/o Medanta, The Medicity, Sector 38, Gurgaon, Haryana, Pin-122001.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                                   

Present:               Shri Subhash Jindal, Advocate, for Complainant. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Hem Raj (since deceased)-father of Charan Dass-complainant was suffering from heart disease. He was admitted in Medanta Global Health Private Limited, Gurgaon (Opposite Parties) on July 5^th, 2014 where he underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) on July 7^th, 2014. Post single chamber PPI was done on July 12^th, 2014. He was discharged on July 15^th, 2014 in stable condition. He was again admitted in the Medanta hospital on July 17^th, 2014 complaining breathlessness and decreased appetite. He died on August 5^th, 2014 during the course of treatment.

2.      The complainant has filed the instant complaint before this Commission alleging that his father died due to medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is further stated that he paid more than Rs.18,92,476/- to the opposite parties for the treatment of his father. The complainant has sought refund of Rs.18,92,476/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum from March 11^th, 2014 till the date of its realization, compensation of Rs.12.00 lacs for physical harassment and mental tension and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      Alongwith the complaint, copies of the medical record including Discharge Summary issued by Medanta Global Health Private Limited-opposite Parties, with respect to the treatment of deceased Hem Raj, have been produced.  

4.      The question whether or not the claim made in the complaint is realistic, exaggerated or excessive, can be determined after leading evidence but where ex-facie the claim appears extraordinarily high and without any basis, the consumer complaint cannot be entertained.

5.      It is well settled principle of law that complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora by either grossly over-valuing or under-valuing the claim. The compensation claimed has to be commensurate with the loss or injury suffered by the complainant. It cannot be arbitrary, imaginary or for a remote cause.

6.      In the instant case the complainant has stated that he has paid more than Rs.18,92,476/- to the opposite parties for the treatment of his father but no receipts/bills have been produced by him.  He has also claimed compensation of Rs.12.00 lacs for which the complainant has not disclosed the basis for said figure.

7.      The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant was that since the complainant has to come from Bareta, District Mansa (Pb.), therefore, it would be convenient for him to attend hearings at Panchkula.  The submission so made is not tenable in the eyes of law.

8.      Hon’ble National Commission in Kumari Femy and others vs. Kavitha V.K. (Dr.) and others, 1 (2013) CPJ 34 (NC), did not entertain the complaint observing that the compensation claimed was highly exaggerated and did not borne out by the material placed on record.

9.      In Kumari Femy’s case (Supra) reliance was placed upon Ratna Ghosh and another vs. Dr. P.K. Agarwal and others, II(2010) CPJ 204 (NC)=Civil Appeal No.6409 of 2010, decided on 6.8.2010 (S.C.) and Sujata Nath vs. Popular Nursing Home and others, III(2011) CPJ 239 ((NC)=Civil Appeal No.8642 of 2011 decided on 14.10.2011 (S.C.).       

10.    The issue in hand was also recently decided by a bench of Hon’ble National Commission headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, President, while dismissing Consumer Complaint No.383 of 2013, Indrani Chatterjee and another vs. Amri Hospitals alongwith fifteen other complaints, vide common order dated November 7^th, 2014, observing as under:-

“We are of the opinion that, as at present, the complainants have not been able to satisfy us as to on what basis the claims ranging between Rs.7,00.00,000/- to Rs.12,00,00,000/-, have been quantified. We are convinced that the claims have been inflated in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission”.

 11.   On a careful analysis of the principles stated in the foregoing cases and having perused the case file, this Commission is of the view that the claim of the complainant is highly exaggerated and not borne out by the material placed on the record. The complainant has unreasonably inflated the claim for bringing his complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The instant complaint is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law.

12.    Hence, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file the same before the Appropriate Authority.

 

Announced: 04.08.2015

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL