DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2024
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 29/03/2022
CC/52/2022
Shobha C.,
D/o.Bhargavi Amma,
Krishnanandam, Kamalalayam,
Near City Mart, Sekharipuram Post,
Palakkad – 678 010 - Complainant
(By Adv. M/s. K.Dhananjayan & Silpa Jayan)
Vs
- M/s.Valluvanadu Hospital Complex Ltd.,
Kanniyampuram Post,
Ottapalam, Palakkad – 679 104
- M/s. Valluvanadu Hospital Complex Ltd.,
Kanniyampuram Post,
Ottapalam, Palakkad – 679 104
Rep.by Chairman & MD, Dr. Ramakrishnan.
- Govt. of Kerala,
Rep.by District Collector, Palakkad
- The District Medical Officer,
Office of DMO, DHS, Civil Station, Palakkad
- Ministry of Health Services,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthpuram - Opposite parties
(OPs 1 & 2 by Adv.T.N.Harshan
OPs 3 to 5, removed from party array)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Essential pleadings of the complainant are that her mother was admitted to the hospital run by OPs 1 & 2 with Covid 19 affliction. Subsequently she died after days of hospitalization. The bill generated by the OPs 1 & 2 was exorbitant and in total violation of the guidelines issued by the Govt. from time to time. O.P.s 3 to 4 had a responsibility to monitor the hospitals to keep hospital charges in tune with Government Orders. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s.
- OPs 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed version submitting that there was no illegality whatsoever in the bill generated. Total bill of expenses came to Rs. 4,38,610/-. Complaint was directed to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- after deductions and amount already paid. Complainant had issued two cheques for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- which were dishonoured upon presentation. This complaint is a counter blast for filing the criminal complaint under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant. There had been no illegal charging or deficiency in service whatsoever.
- O.P.4 filed the Covid 19 related Government Orders, along with a covering statement.
- The following issues were framed for consideration:
- Whether the O.P.s 3 to 5 are necessary parties to the complaint?
- Whether there is any Deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s in the billing process adopted?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?
- Any other reliefs?
5. (i) Documentary evidence of complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A3.
Marking of Ext. A1 is objected to on the ground it is a photocopy and that the amount does not reflect the actual amount. Validity of the objection can be considered as and when the need, if at all, arises.
(ii) O.P. filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.B1 to B24.
Issue No.1
6. This issue was considered as preliminary issue and it was found that they are not necessary parties to adjudicate the dispute. O.P.s 3 to 5 were removed from party array as per Order dated 24/04/2023.
Issue No. 2
7. Complainant pleads that her mother was affected with Covid-19 on 1/10/2020. She was admitted to OP hospital on 10/10/2020. She died on 25/10/2020. Towards hospitalization expenses the OPs 1 & 2 claimed Rs.3,66,610.39/-. As the complainant was not having enough money, she remitted Rs.72,000/-. She issued cheques for the balance amount. Her grievance pertains to the fact that the OPs had not given a detailed bill stating the expenses which include the cost of PPE kit and the no. of PPE kit used, the name and details of costly injections, details of the period complainant’s mother was kept in ventilator. Complainant pleads that issuance of a bill for Rs.4,50,000/- is violative of various Orders and directives issued by Govt. of Kerala from time to time for treatment of Covid-19 patients.
8. Pursuant to the appearance and denial of the allegation of exorbitant billing, the Govt. Orders pertaining to the restrictions on billing and fixation of rates of various treatments and tests were produced and marked as Exts.B1 to B3. The opposite party has marked a total of 24 documents which includes a number of bills for the expenses incurred. 112 bills of daily expenses were marked as Exts. B4(series) to B20. All these exhibits were marked without any objection whatsoever.
9. After having marked the exhibits, It was the duty on the part of the complainant to go through the bills marked and compare them with the prices given in the G.O.s and point out the irregularities, infractions and violations. But the complainant has failed to carry out such an exercise and prove a water-tight case. Mere production of documents will not in any manner assist this Commission in coming to a conclusion that the prices charged are exorbitant.
Complainant had filed an argument note. Even the argument notes, which is supposed to assist this Commission, does not contain a comparison of reasonable and fair prices with that of the prices charged in the case of the complainant. Complainant’s argument notes is only a verbatim reproduction of the complaint pleadings and there is no appreciation of any evidence.
10. Thus, we hold that the complainant has failed in proving their case that the OPs 1 & 2 has over priced and over charged the complainant for treating her mother.
Issue Nos. 3,4, & 5
11. Apropos the discussions and findings above we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the OPs 1 & 2.
12. Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs sought for.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
14. Holding thus, this complaint stands dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 14th day of June, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of discharge bill dated 24/10/2020
Ext.A2 - Copy of lawyer’s notice dated 17/2/2021
Ext.A3 - Copy of lawyer’s notice dated 6/3/2021
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 - Copy of Govt. order bearing No. G.O. (Rt)No.1236/2020/H&FWD dtd.2/7/2020
Ext.B2 – Copy of Govt. order bearing No. G.O. (Rt)No.1935/2020/H&FWD dtd.21/10/2020
Ext.B3 - Copy of Govt. order bearing No. G.O. (Rt)No.1436/2021/H&FWD dtd.7/7/2021
Ext.B4 series – Set of 8 bills dated 11/10/2020
Ext.B5 series – Set of 6 bills dated 20/10/2020
Ext.B6 series – Set of 7 bills dated 19/10/2020
Ext.B7 series – Set of 9 bills dated 25/10/2020
Ext.B8 series – Set of 8 bills dated 21/10/2020
Ext.B9 series – Set of 6 bills dated 14/10/2020
Ext.B10 series – Set of 7 bills dated 24/10/2020
Ext.B11 series - Set of 10 bills dated 13/10/2020
Ext.B12 series – Set of 7 bills dated 12/10/2020
Ext.B13 series – Set of 9 bills dated 15/10/2020
ExtB14 series – Set of 8 bills dated 18/10/2020
Ext.B15 series – Set of 10 bills dated 22/10/2020
Ext.B16 series – Set of 6 bills dated 17/10/2020
Ext.B17 series – Set of 4 bills dated 10/10/2020
Ext.B18 series – Set of 5 bills dated 16/10/2020
Ext.B19 series – Set of 2 Original discharge bill
Ext.B20 – Printout of discharge bill
Ext.B21 - Copy of lawyer’s notice dated 17/2/2021
Ext.B22 - -Copy of lawyer’s notice dated 06/03/2021
Ext.B23 – Copy of complaint in CC/300/2021 on the filed JFMCI, Ottapalam
Ext.B24 - Printout of daily stats of CC /300/2021 from E-Courts Services.
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
