DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.508/2008
Mr. Viney Kumar Jain
N-27, Green Park Extension
New Delhi-110016 ….Complainant
Versus
National Heart Institute
(through its CEO)
49-50, Community Centre
East of Kailash
New Delhi-110065 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 16.08.2008 Date of Order : 28.03.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Case of the complainant is that he was admitted in the OP hospital on 06.12.07 for Ethnography (Cardiac Cath). Dr. Vinod Sharma informed him and his family that three arteries are blocked and he has to undergo the byepass surgery for the same. Having no other option he alongwith his family decided to go for the said surgery. The OP further informed him that they would charge for the surgery in package and advised him to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- for the same. It is submitted that in the package he was to be provided with a common room having three beds for 10 days inclusive ICU, medicines, food and other charges and the same was deposited on 11.12.07. It is submitted that at the time of depositing the amount the OP had shown different packages and stated that if he deposited Rs.35,000/- more he would get the facility of single room maximum for 10 days inclusive ICU, medicines, food and other faculties. In the written proforma it was also mentioned that if the complainant took any services i.e. surgery from the said hospital after doing angiography he would further be entitled to get refund of Rs.5000/-. The complainant deposited Rs.35,000/- in cash which was duly received by the OP. Surgery was conducted in the morning of 12.12.07 and thereafter he was kept in the recovery room and directly discharged from there on 17.12.07. His son contacted the OP for refund of Rs.35,000/- since the Complainant had not stayed in a single room but the matter was avoided by the OP. Thereafter, the son of the complainant met the Chief Accountant Mr. S. K. Shelly, apprised him of the facts and stated that the OP had unfairly charged Rs.35,000/- from him and also not gave Rs.5000/- discount as per the said package. Therefore, the complainant requested the OP to refund of Rs.40,000/- which was unfairly taken by the OP. It is stated that the OP did not budge despite having meetings with the MS and CEO Mr. O.P. Yadav. On the other hand, the CEO misbehaved with his son. It is submitted that his son filed a complaint in Consumer Coordination (Core Centre) at Noida, Sector-62, however, nothing has been heard from the OP despite several reminders from the complainant and Consumer Coordination (Core Centre). Therefore, he sent a letter dated 15.06.08 to the OP regarding non-redressal of his grievance but the reply submitted by the OP vide letter dated 23.06.08 was not satisfactory.
Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint has been filed for the following reliefs:
“(a) pass an order thereby directing the Opposite Party to refund the Rs.35,000/- extra taken from the complainant in name of providing single room facility alongwith with interest @ 24% per annum till the date of its actual payment and/or;
(b) pass an order thereby directing the Opposite Party to make the refund of Rs.5000/-, the discount money as per the package along with interest @ 24% per annum till the date of its actual payment and/or;
(c) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- for causing mental pain and agony to the complainant and his family and/or,
(d) to pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.”
In the written OP has inter-alia stated that it is matter of common knowledge that the patient after undergoing coronary artery byepass graft surgery (open heart surgery) is kept in the post operative recovery room also known as ICCU. The said recovery room is highly intensive and the costliest area in the hospital because of the nature of services which are required to be provided in that area. No patient can opt to stay in the said room unless he/she is medically required to be retained in the said room; as soon as it is possible, the patient after operation is removed to his respective room assigned to him according to the package opted by him at pre-operation stage. A bare perusal of the schedule of the charges for facility- service would show that for every heading there are four categories of charges, namely, charges of economic room, double room, single room and deluxe room. However, none has any schedule for post operative recovery room. For example, the room for which the complainant has opted has a tariff of Rs.2800/- per day whereas the post operative recovery room has a tariff of Rs.4000/- per day. Therefore, in the post operative period the complainant was provided with the better facility than what he had opted in the package. It is the discretion of the doctor as to whether the patient has to be removed from the post operative recovery room or whether the patient has to be discharged from the care and control of the hospital. While the complainant was being maintained in the post operative recovery room on the sixth day, it was decided that the patient was ripe for discharge. It is not the case of the complainant that he was prematurely discharged from the OP. As far as charges are concerned there has been never any confusion and infact the hospital has been benevolent not to claim further payments from the Complainant since there is no provision in the schedule of charges that if the patient has to be retained in the post operative recovery room within the period of this package, extra charges can be imposed as is the practice in other hospital. Therefore, it was decided not to charge any extra amount from the complainant. The package assigns a total period of 10 days, if the patient stays longer he has to pay in addition to the package as per the schedule of charges for hospital. Package may extend for 10 days but does not mean that the patient has to be kept in the hospital for a period of 10 days. As the complainant was ripe for discharge within 6 days, therefore no necessity arose for shifting him in the individual room assigned to him according to the package. As far as the allegations of non-refund of Rs.5000/- is concerned, it is stated that the tariff for the package opted for the complainant was Rs.185000/- whereas the complainant was charged Rs.180000/- after deduction of discount being claimed. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence.
OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 18.02.11 passed by our predecessors. Hence, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly the complainant had undergone the Open Heart/Bypass Surgery conducted by the OP hospital and he was kept in the post operative recovery room (ICCU) for 6 days and he was discharged from there. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 10.12.07 through cheque and Rs.35,000/- in cash, the OP received the amount and issued the receipts (we mark the documents as Annexure-A & B for the purposes of identification). The complainant issued a letter to the OP on 15.06.08 for refund of excess payment of Rs.35000/- (we mark the document as Annexure-C for the purposes of identification). The OP vide letter dated 23.06.08 informed the complainant that “infact there is no excess payment made by you, as alleged. As per the condition of the patient, it was necessary to keep the patient in the recovery room from 12.12.07 to 17.12.07. The recovery room charges are Rs.4500/- per day whereas charges for single bedroom are Rs.2800/- per day. As such there is no such excess by you. Rather, the hospital did not recover from you the difference between the charges for recovery room and the single room occupancy” (we mark the documents as Annexure-D for the purposes of identification). The OP has filed a schedule of charges for facilities /services effective from 01.07.06 wherein in clause 28 (B) Open Heart/Byepass Surgery package has been given and it is mentioned that the cost of the single room shall be Rs.1,85,000/-. It is also mentioned that a concession of Rs.5000/- will be given to the patient who undergoes CABG after an angiography at the NHI in the same admission (we mark the document as Annexure- E for the purposes of identification). It is further provided as under:-
“[* Package includes maximum 10 days hospital stay, medical/nursing care, routine investigation and consumables, Hony. Consultant Surgeon’s, Cardiologist and Anaesthetist’s fee, diet and drugs charges, but excludes Cardiac catheterization charges. Patient developing any complications needing re-exploration or Redo-surgery/Sternal resuturing, dialysis, expensive drugs not in routine use in the package and other tests to be carried out from outside this hospital shall be charged extra.]”
The Complainant deposited Rs.1,50,000/- plus Rs.35,000/- (total Rs.1,85,000/-) on 10.12.2007 on account of surgery charges and not Rs.1,50,000/- against surgery and Rs.35,000/- towards providing single room facility. It means that the complainant had infact opted for economic room package in the first instance and after giving a second thought he opted for the package for single room amounting to Rs.1,85,000/-. The package for economic room is Rs.1,45,000/- and not Rs.1,50,000/- as is tried to be pleaded and proved by the complainant. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that the complainant himself opted for single room package and as per the package he could be kept in the ICU or in the single room for a maximum period of 10 days as per the decision taken by the treating doctors. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe that the complainant was given an assurance that in case he is not given a single room during his stay in the hospital he would be refunded Rs. 35000/- by the OP. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 28.03.17.
