Date of filing:- 12/09/2018.
Date of Order:-27/01/2020.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 60 of 2018
Dr. Hiralal Lath, aged about 72(seventy two) years, S/o Late Ganga Prasad Lath, resident of Infront of George High School, Bargarh, Po/Ps. Bargarh, Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... .... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
M/s Vikash Multi Speciality Hospital, Barhagoda, Bargarh represented through its Managing Director/Head of said Hospital, At/Po. Barahagoda, Ps. Bargarh, Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Sri C. Panda, Advocate with associate Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- :- Sri B.K. Mahapatra, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.27/01/2020. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case :-
Being pursuant with the provision U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Complainant has filed the case before the Forum, with the allegation against the Opposite Party as envisaged hereunder.
The case of the Complainant is that he is a senior medical practitioner of the Bargarh Town wanted to check up his health in the Multi Specialist Hospital of the Opposite Party. And as such went there and on the advice of the hospital of the Opposite Party he paid an amount of Rs.400/-(Rupees four hundred)only towards patients entry fees and paid Rs.200/-(Rupees two hundred)only for cardiographs and also paid an amount of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only towards certain other tests like ECG, ECHO etc. Accordingly all the tests were done but none of such tests report was supplied with him even after his repeated request for the same, and instead of that he was referred to the Chest Department even if it was not necessary in his view as a doctor, but however due to such acts of the Opposite Party he sustained mental agony and financial Loss and also suffered a lot and his allegation is that such action of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiencies of service on his part, hence has filed the case before the Forum to redress his dispute claiming an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh)only as compensation towards his mental agony and financial and physical harassment relying on the receipt issued by the Opposite Party and the prescription of the Doctor of the Opposite Party Hospital.
Perused the complaint, the documents and on hearing the learned counsel of the Complainant the case seems to be a genuine one as such admitted and Notice was served on the Opposite Party for appearance and to file his version. Accordingly the Opposite Party entered in to appearance through his Advocate and has filed his version.
So far the version of the Opposite Party is concerned it is a complete denial one to the case of the Complainant except the facts on record of the fees paid by him with a note of ambiguity with the same, and also has made averment therein that the allegation made by the Complainant that though it was not required, he was referred to the Chest Department as self estimation and has not gone on the advice of the referral doctor, and also has completely denied the allegation of the Complainant not to have provided him with the report of the tests undertaken on his body, furthermore has challenged the status of the Complainant for being a consumer under the Act saying as ambiguous and has claimed before the Forum to dismiss the case with exemplary costs.
While the case was under process of hearing the Complainant filed an affidavit in support of his Complaint petition as an additional evidence to which the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party declined to cross examine him even though opportunity was given by the Hon'ble Forum to him and as such the Forum on it’s own conducted an inquiry on the evidence of the Complainant and have recorded the same before the open Forum, further more the Complainant through his learned Advocate also has filed an Affidavit of the treating Doctor namely Dr.P.R.Mahapatra as an additional evidence in his support to whom the Advocate for the Complainant filed an application to cross examine and his petition was allowed by the Forum and the Opposite Party was directed to produce him for his cross examination but he was not produced rather subsequently thereafter the Advocate for the Opposite Party filed a petition along with some citation of the higher legal Authority to expunge the said affidavit and the deponent from appearing before the Forum and as such his petition was allowed and he was expunged, hence the Affidavit is brushed aside of consideration.
Further more in addition to their pleadings and oral submission the respective counsels for the respective Parties have filed their notes of arguments in support of their individual case.
Having gone through the materials available in the record and the submission placed by both oral and the notes of arguments of the Counsels of the respective parties, the following issues have come up before the forum.
i) Whether the O.P.is deficient in providing service to the Complainant ?
ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief as has been sought for ?
While dealing with the issue as to whether the Opposite Party is deficient in rendering service to the Complainant, delving deep in to the details of the materials available in the record and also keeping oral and written notes of arguments filed by the counsels for the Parties in our view it has been observed that the claim of the Opposite Party in his submission through his Advocate that the Complainant is not a consumer and has been playing dubious role is not sustainable as it is evident from the money receipts issued by the Opposite Party having received the consideration amount from the Complainant for the entry in his hospital and also for different test as has been envisaged in the pleadings admitting the same in different parts of his version and in addition to the same since the hospital of the Opposite Party is running on a private mode of management.
Furthermore it reveals from the materials available in the record in the version of the Opposite Party itself that different tests have been conducted on the body of the complainant is admitted by the Opposite Party in it’s version with references to the prescription of the treating Doctor Dr.P.R Mahapatra so the authenticity of the Complainant deposed at the time of inquiry made by the Forum is needless to refer as has been pointed out by the Opposite Party in his Notes of arguments, further more it is pertinent to mention here that the same doctor who has been said to have handed over the said test report to the Complainant after referring the same and mentioning the same in his prescription is not tenable because of the fact that it is observed from the prescription of the Doctor that the test report has been referred and also the fact that the Complainant has been referred to the Pulmonary Medicine, but it is not being clear enough for us to deduct that the same tests report in question has been handed over to the Complainant as it is not being clearly legible and for the absence of the said Doctor before the Forum, which could have been made clear from his mouth that whether he has handed over the tests report along with the prescription or has handed over him the prescription only and has referred him to the Chest Department because we don’t find any remark of the Opposite Party at any point of time also that he has supplied the same to the Complainant along with the test report and also the very absence of the said Doctor who was cited as an witness with his affidavit filed by the Opposite Party before the Forum citing him as acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case but non production of him and to press to expunge his evidence before the Forum for his examination even after being directed by the Forum to appear is a serious matter of concern and consideration furthermore the Opposite Party through his Advocate pressed to expunge him, in furtherance to his pleas in his oral and written notes of arguments that since the witness cited by the Opposite Party is an independent witness and as the Complainant did not deposit the required amount of his fees he did not appear before the Forum on the contrary the provision envisaged in the Act itself that if an witness file an affidavit the other party has got right to cross examine if he wants so prevails for which an adverse inference can be drawn against the Opposite Party.
On the Contrary it is also observed from the averment made by the Opposite Party in his version that the treating doctor namely Dr.P.R. Mahapatra perused and considered the report and has noted the outcome/findings of such test on the body of the prescription and handed over to the Complainant, but it is never cited anywhere in his version in clear dictum that the report in question has ever been handed over to the complainant except the denial made by him, in addition to that the very absence of the Doctor concerned namely Dr.P.R.Mahapatra who is said to have treated the Complainant even if being directed by the Honorable Forum to appear and depose the contents of his own affidavit creates a cloud of doubt in the mind of the Forum, because he is very much present in the same locality being able to come to the same court premises to swear the affidavit but did not bother to come to the Forum and later on he has been expunged on the petition of the Opposite Party, and also for the action of the Opposite Party himself not to produce him.
And further more we don’t find any reason with the complainant who himself is a doctor of high reputation in the Locality to file the case against the Opposite Party having any malafied intention or due to his old age and forget fullness as has been alleged by the Opposite Party in his written notes of arguments and oral submission without any basis and beyond his pleading too.
And so far the inquiry made by the Forum is concerned the vital points of the pleadings of the Complainant has been found to be true such as he had been to the Hospital of the Opposite Party and has undergone some tests therein which has also been admitted by the Opposite Party hence it is needless to reflect the details of the inquiry notes here at the present juncture.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances we are of the view that the Opposite Party has failed to prove the allegation of deficiencies of service coupled with unfair trade practice levelled against him by the Complainant as futile one as such our answer is assertive with the case of the Complainant .
Secondly with regard to the issue as to whether the Complainant is entitled to relief as has sought for, it is pertinent to mention here that he is also a doctor and has gone to the hospital of the Opposite Party to check up his health and has also undergone the required test and as it is also his priority to have been supplied with the copy of such report from which he could have assessed his health condition himself or through any other Doctor of his own choice from which he has been debarred,for such acts of the Opposite Party which is obvious on his part to undergo with mental agony and physical and financial harassment as such we express our consensus view in favour of the Complainant and for which the Opposite Party is liable. As such our order follows.
O R D E R.
Hence the Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only to the Complainant towards his mental agony and physical and financial harassment with interest @ 6 %(six percent) per annum from the date of filling the case within thirty days of receipt of the order or else an interest @ 9%(nine percent) per annum would accrue on the amount till the actual realization of the mount.
In the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party ,and the same being pronounced in the open Forum is disposed off to-day i.e on Dt.27/01/2020.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W).
Uploaded by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan
Office Assistant, Bargarh
