PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. The present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 14.05.2013 in Appeal No. 747 of 2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘State Commission’). The State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Whereby the Petitioner had challenged the order dated 03.05.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Complaint No. 489/2012 (137/2010) in favour of Respondent and against Petitioner, directing the Petitioner herein to make a payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of proceedings and was directed to discontinue the unfair trade practice. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2009 the patient/Complainant Smt. Meenu Jain was admitted to Fortis Escort Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan-OP for treatment of Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), a serious disease. The Complainant-2, Sh. Prem Chand Jain who was the husband of Smt. Meenu Jain had signed a general consent for admission form, a counselling form, It was agreed that the treatment will be done as per the advice of doctors and the patient’s treatment will be charged at hospital rates. On 25.06.2009, the patient was on ventilator and it was decided to administer a lifesaving drug injection “IVIGLOBEX”, five doses daily, for five days. The cost of each injection-M.R.P. was Rs.18,990/-. Those injections were provided by hospital pharmacy and the Complainant was successfully treated and discharged on 13.06.2009. The total sum of Rs.6,82,965/- as hospitalisation charges were paid by the Complainant without any protest. The Complainant alleges that, he was told that the cost per injection was Rs.9,000/-.The Complainant-2 requested the hospital authorities that the injection “IVIGLOBEX” was available at Rs.30% - 40% discount in the other medical shops in the market and he may be permitted to purchase the injections from outside, but his request was not considered and he was forced to purchase the injections from the hospital itself. After discharge, the Complainant wrote a letter to the OP on 24.06.2009, and sought information about the Batch no., Expiry date, and the Bill of the supplier of those injections to the hospital, but the OP refused to furnish the details to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant sought Rs.1,56,167/- from the OP which was charged in excess to the price of those injections which was also turned down by the OP. Hence, the Complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. 3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and held the hospital guilty for not allowing the Complainants to arrange the injections from the market and awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, to the Complainant-1 and State Consumer Welfare Fund. Also, Rs.5,000/-was awarded towards the cost of litigation. The District Forum also directed the Hospital not to repeat such unfair trade practices. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2012,the Petitioner preferred First Appeal No. 747/2012 titled ‘Fortis Escorts Hospital, Jaipur Vs. Smt. Meenu Jain and Ors.’ Before the State Forum, Rajasthan, Jaipur and raised several factual as well as legal grounds. 5. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petition filed this Revision Petition. 6. We have heard the arguments from the Counsel for the Petitioner. The Respondent/Complainant submitted the written argument and furnished an application for exemption for personal appearance on the ground of old age of about 70 years, he is suffering from acute asthma and cancer. The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the treatment of Complainant-1 was successful till the patient was discharged, the Complainant-2 never protested about the price of the injections, also did not protest at the time of discharge and paid the entire bill amount. The Complainant-2 raised this issue of discount of 30%-40% beyond M.R.P., after discharge. Hence, there is no iota of any medical negligence. So no liability should be fastening on OP. He also submitted that the same drugs, available outside the hospital may be spurious. He brought to our attention to the raid conducted by Drug Controller officials, on a medical store, outside hospital and seized 15 “INVIGLOBEX” injections that were suspected to be spurious. 7. We have perused the evidence on file, the Complainant No.-2 wrote a letter dated 24.06.2009 to the hospital authorities and sought information about the bill from the suppliers of the injections and also sought information about the batch numbers and expiry date of the injections, but the hospital authorities vide its letter dated 13.08.2009 refused to furnish the details to the Complainant. The State Commission observed that ; “As, per the averment of the Complainants, Dr. Rajaram Agarwal, whose name is also mentioned in the admission form Ex.D-1 and general consent for admission Ex.D-2, informed Complainant No.2 on 25.05.2009 that the cost of each injection was around Rs.9,000/- but later on he informed the Complainant that the cost of each injection was not of Rs.9,000/- but it was for Rs.18,990/- and the injection had to be purchased from the hospital itself. It is true that the Complainant no.-2, the husband of the patient gave his consent in Ex.D-2 & D-3 but it is pertinent to mention that his wife was seriously ill and he put his signatures on the printed consent form for admission and the counselling form.” 8. We find that, the complainant singed the consent and the counselling form, but it is also important to understand the state of mind of the complainant-2 as his wife Meenu Jain was in a critical condition in OP hospital. The OP was in a dominating position over the Complainants. Also, the Complainants agreed to pay the expenses of drugs and medicines and other consumables as per rates of the hospital, but it is also an admitted fact that the hospital authorities did not permit the Complainant to purchase the injection “IVIGLOBEX” from outside, despite repeated verbal requests. Those injections were allegedly available in the market at lesser price and he was forced to buy the injections from the hospital itself. Thus, the hospital authorities indirectly imposed unjustified and unreasonable conditions on the Complainant to purchase the injections from the hospital, for the treatment of the patient. The counsel for OP argued that, to ensure quality and genuineness of the drugs, the OP did not permit the patients to buy the drugs from outside which is not at all convincing and reasonable. The OP sold the injections at the maximum retail price (MRP), and not charged any excess amount. 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration and feel that the patient was suffering from GBS, a serious disease, and was in a critical condition. No doubt, the OP hospital has treated her and cured her. We know that, the corporate hospitals purchase the medicines, surgical items, consumables, in bulk. Certainly huge margin is available, while procurement. OP has not produced it’s purchase bills of those injections. In the open market, certainly the distributors or Pharmacy shops offer discounts on the medicines. The inj. IVIGLOBEX is a very expensive drug, which will be available at discounted price in open market, hence the OP should have allowed at least marginal discount of about 10 to 20%. The corporate hospitals should not be a commercial/business centres for profiteering from the exploitation of such critical patients, who have to pay sky rocketing hospital bills. Regarding contention of OP about spurious drugs, the OP was at liberty to explain the pros and cons of drugs brought from outside market, and after due consent from the complainants, they could have administered the injections. 10. Also, it is pertinent to note, the Opportunistic attitude of the Complainants. It is also a moral obligation of patient/ complainant that, the hospital treated the critical patient. The Complainant-2 has not produced any cogent evidence to show the discounted price of injections. This is negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of complainant. 11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the hospital authorities exercised undue influence and compelled the Complainants to pay excess price. This amounts to unfair trade practice. The right of the Complainant/patient cannot be curtailed by preventing the Complainants to exercise their option to purchase the medicines or injections from the market. Also the complainant’s approach was opportunistic. Thus, in context of maintaining good Doctor-Patient relationship, we feel that the OP should have allowed discount on the purchase of 25 doses of expensive injections IVIGLOBEX by the Complainant. 12. The complainant calculated the excess amount of Rs.1,56,167/-. Also, we cannot totally ignore the services which OP had rendered to the patient in critical condition. The OP has every right to earn profits from its pharmacy, but it should be reasonable or acceptable one. Therefore, we feel it is just and proper to allow refund of 50% of the calculated excess amount. Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the State Commission and direct the petitioner/OP to refund/pay Rs.78,000/- to the complainant, within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realisation. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.